Mueller working directly FOR Trump....EO13223 Ammendment...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

You got that right. The feeling is with the interview of Hope Hicks that Mueller may be getting ready to wrap this up.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Jesus how is it off topic? Vasacroe said he couldn't think of a reason for trump to change the E.O. and a shortage of pilots is certainly a reason that is being discussed.

a reply to: JinMI

You were expecting a transcript?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then maybe he was getting some background on possible candidates within the bureau that Mueller knew.
It seems a bit flimsy to pin this elaborate plan on a meeting that only trump and Mueller know was about.
Particularly since appearances are not that trump and Mueller are working together but exactly the opposite.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

That's an assumption dear. And it's incorrect.
You just don't like my point of view.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JinMI

You were expecting a transcript?

I was expecting some of that healthy mind stuff in action.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then maybe he was getting some background on possible candidates within the bureau that Mueller knew.
It seems a bit flimsy to pin this elaborate plan on a meeting that only trump and Mueller know was about.
Particularly since appearances are not that trump and Mueller are working together but exactly the opposite.

Ah, and then senior WH officials went to NPR and the DC to lie and tell them this elaborate story about how Mueller was interviewing for Comey's job and how he was on the 'short list'...

...all to cover up that he was merely giving input on possible director candidates.

Elaborate theory there, Silly.

I think the Sill-bot needs to be rebooted.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Jesus how is it off topic? Vasacroe said he couldn't think of a reason for trump to change the E.O. and a shortage of pilots is certainly a reason that is being discussed.

But not until you brought it here.

With snopes.

I'm willing to give you a mulligan on that one if you want it, but I bet you stand by them as reliable.

I'll gladly compare the OP source and the ones I added as well to yours. The American Presidency Project, whitehouse.gov, Cornell Law link 1, and Cornell Law link 2, the last two quoting U.S. Code to your source any day of the week.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: elementalgrove

Right..that he took the real long way around to be able to tell Mueller what to do when he can just fire him is much easier to swallow. Ok. I just don't process things the way you do.

No Silly, Mueller is as guilty as the previous administration and the way things are looking he has been given a deal.

Try to keep up!

Yep, Mueller was told to investigate and expose or go down with them.

Holder, Lynch etc?...

he's looking for proof that this whole ''Russian Collusion'' nonsense was a charade they made up

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Elaborate theory there, Silly.

Not really. The theory of getting information on employees takes a lot less assuming than they were forming a plot to get Obama and Clinton by pretending to investigate trump. But if you see it as elaborate okay.

As for the media, it seems this all stems from NPRs reporting about the meeting and an assumption that they didn't somehow realize Mueller was ineligible for the appointment when in fact they did know it and addressed it and said that his considering Mueller was an indication of the difficulty trump was having in filling the position. Perhaps trumps idea was to have Congress make another exception.
From NPRs report on the meeting and the subject of the exception that had been made...

That law stated that lawmakers had made a one-time exception and made it clear that Mueller "may not serve as Director after September 4, 2013."

The idea that the Trump administration had considered bringing Mueller back to the FBI underscores the difficulty it had in finding a replacement for the fired Comey — as well as Mueller's sterling reputation among both Democrats and Republicans in Washington

www.npr.org... m=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170609

a reply to: Sillyolme

I didn't say it had a lot of assumptions. I said it was "elaborate" for a theory on why senior White House officials would mislead the press.

And it is NPR that ASSUMED Mueller interviewing is a reflection on how hard it was to fill Comey's position. I already read that, btw, a couple of weeks ago. And I thought it was a ridiculous assumption then and now -- he isn't/wasn't eligible.

Stop assuming so much, Silly.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I brought a report. I didn't assume anything.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I brought a report. I didn't assume anything.

A report of a baseless assumption.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Jesus how is it off topic? Vasacroe said he couldn't think of a reason for trump to change the E.O. and a shortage of pilots is certainly a reason that is being discussed.

Rather than argue your strawman, you could discuss the actual information related to the thread topic.

Maybe you missed it since I directed the reply to proximo, though it was also meant for general knowledge of the thread.

Here is the reasoning I put forth as to what was behind the EO being amended:

Here is the existing EO, section 1:

Section 1. To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States, the authority under title 10, United States Code, to order any unit, and any member of the Ready Reserve not assigned to a unit organized to serve as a unit, in the Ready Reserve to active duty for not more than 24 consecutive months, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense. The term "Secretary concerned" is defined in section 101(a)(9) of title 10, United States Code, to mean the Secretary of the Army with respect to the Army; the Secretary of the Navy with respect to the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard when it is operating as a service in the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to the Air Force; and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.

And now, let's look at the amendment and what is added to the existing excutive order:

Section 1. Amendment to Executive Order 13223. Section 1 of Executive Order 13223 is amended by adding at the end: "The authorities available for use during a national emergency under sections 688 and 690 of title 10, United States Code, are also invoked and made available, according to their terms, to the Secretary concerned, subject in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, to the direction of the Secretary of Defense."

The change does not affect the existing order except to add the above to the current order, leaving everything else in place.

The applicable authority granted falls under 10 U.S. Code § 688 - Retired members: authority to order to active duty; duties and 10 U.S. Code § 690 - Retired members ordered to active duty: limitation on number

I think the important parts are these:

(f)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—
Subsections (d) and (e) do not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President.

And

(c)Waiver for Periods of War or National Emergency.—
Subsection (a) does not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President after November 30, 1980. Subsection (b) does not apply in time of war or of national emergency declared by Congress or the President.

Respectively, this essentially is saying that during a period of War or National Emergency, the time limit that reactivated members are usually subjected to can be overridden. Otherwise, without this, there is a limit on the amount of time a member can be reactivated.

Please note that the sources listed are the actual EO,the amendment, and portions of U.S. Code as being pertinent in the amendment.

If my reasoning is flawed, please use the same sources to make your argument.

Otherwise, you have nothing.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So what's your end game here? You want Trump to have Mueller stop his investigation?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: proximo

And he's going through trumps admin and family to do it. How clever to throw Obama and Clinton off the track. Those undisclosed contacts and emails and meeting and Russians in every closet is an excellent cover because they had me convinced they were investigating trump. I'm flabbergasted. What an ingenius diabolical plan.

Isn't it though? It's really more fantastical than words can describe...
Here's a question... What happens when more indictments drop on Trump cronies? How do you continue to live in fantasy land when everything points to a certain conclusion.... Almost every shoe to drop has been a negative for Trump and his posse from day 1... Secret meetings, undisclosed email chains, etc..... Lies lies lies. They've lied every step of the way and have been caught every step of the way.... They're still lying, and, they're going to continue to get caught... Yet their supporters will continue to find ways to drink the koolaid... Just come up with another fantastical plot in order to never address the obvious...

a reply to: IAMTAT

This sounds good; as some others have said, if true, real 4D chess. Drain the swamp!

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So what's your end game here? You want Trump to have Mueller stop his investigation?

Not at all. I want Mueller to keep going.