comment to rick s point wasn t the f word. it was impeachment. how long of those democrats, we talked about running for president, going to be able to resist walking that line. excellent point and potentially split the party down the middle. one of the litmus tests for the 80, 100 apparently democrats who will run for the nomination. one thing they have to answer and answer it quickly once they get to iowa, new hampshire, south carolina killer and california, are you for impeachment or not and fast do you want it to happen? that litmus test will be hard for members of congress especially to answer right now. i read an op-ed and interesting points. one is, as we all seem to be waiting for the mueller investigation. i don t agree with it but i think she s right about it. that is, you don t need to wait for the mueller investigation to, you know, list our articles
one possibility is he may be waiting for the mueller investigation to concludes before he names someone in that role. after a midterm especially one where there s losses and the president say we picked up a couple of seats it s a normal time to reshuffle a bit. we know how exhausting these jobs are. sometimes two years is enough for them. they may want to move on as well. this is one of the high stakes. it also tells us where his priority, allow is he able to do recruitment? do people want to be part of this administration? that s a big question. it is a big question. it has very significant implications for this president, for his policies. kelly talked about a couple of names we have been watching. homeland security secretary,
and with due process of law. our founders did not oust king george iii in order for us to suffer king richard. in order for us to suffer king richard. you won that case. the precedent is nader v. bork. do you think it would apply and protect bob mueller against donald trump trying to remove him? i think it would. first of all, there s a precedent. second of all, unless he has something nefarious on mr. mueller, which doesn t seem to be the case, so he can t fire him for cause. that would be essentially a playbook, a replay of the nixon situation. but don t think he s not going to do that. i think it s perfectly possible that what he would do, because the attorney general sessions has recused himself. so he s no longer of use in the mueller investigation to donald trump. if if he s cornered with a subpoena and he doesn t want to answer the subpoena and he doesn t want to testify under
implications of all of this to the mueller investigation. some are suggesting mueller could tackle the issue because of campaign finance. it could be a leverage the russians use to blackmail the president if in fact they know about it. so many angles to it. could this also be used by the mueller investigation to squeeze michael cohen or put the squeeze on him for other information pertaining to russia? yeah. potentially. we have seen the various committees investigating this. i believe the actuary has spoken to mueller but i m not sure about that. there are campaign finance laws that prohibit over the limit that there is a federal limit of $2 $2700 that a person can give during election. there is hush money as it was deemed in the amount of $130,000 to someone who could hurt the campaign could be seen as over the limit contribution. also the question of coordination.