Hypothetical
Potential repeal of Special Counsel regulations to close down the investigation.
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| The President | person | 93 | View Entity |
| Attorney General | person | 138 | View Entity |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a narrative report or book produced to the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262). It details the internal strategic analysis of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel team regarding the threat of President Trump shutting down the investigation. It discusses the potential firing of Rod Rosenstein, the recusal of the Attorney General, and the legal and political ramifications (including impeachment and obstruction of justice) if the President were to act unilaterally to end the probe. NOTE: While the prompt identifies this as 'Epstein-related,' this specific page contains no text regarding Jeffrey Epstein; it is focused entirely on the Mueller investigation.
Events with shared participants
Supreme Court case: Myers v. United States. The President refused to enforce a limitation on his removal power, and the Supreme Court vindicated the President's interpretation.
1926-01-01 • United States
Supreme Court case: United States v. Lovett. The President enforced a statute to withhold compensation from employees, despite believing it was unconstitutional, while the Justice Department argued against its constitutionality.
1946-01-01 • United States
Supreme Court case: Morrison v. Olson. The Attorney General enforced the independent counsel statute, which the President viewed as unconstitutional, while the Justice Department attacked its constitutionality in court.
1988-01-01 • United States
Supreme Court case INS v. Chadha, where the executive branch enforced a legislative veto it opposed in order to allow for judicial review.
1983-01-01 • United States
Supreme Court case Morrison v. Olson, where the Attorney General enforced the independent counsel statute while the Justice Department simultaneously attacked its constitutionality in court.
1988-01-01 • United States
The Ninth Circuit court ruled in Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman (842 F.2d 1102), rejecting the President's constitutional arguments and finding Lear Siegler was a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees.
1988-01-01 • Ninth Circuit
The President refused to comply with provisions of the Competition in Contracting Act, viewing them as unconstitutional.
Date unknown
The Ninth Circuit issues its initial ruling in Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Lehman, 842 F.2d 1102, rejecting the President's constitutionality arguments and finding Lear Siegler was a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees.
1988-01-01 • Ninth Circuit
The memorandum was declassified by order of the President.
2018-02-02 • United States
Issuance of Executive Order 13496, mentioned as a related administrative action mandating federal contractors post NLRA rights notices.
2009-02-04 • United States
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event