After Mueller’s Exoneration of Trump, Full Disclosure

Andrew McCarthy ^ | 3/23/19

[Cassius Flavia Agrippa]

It has been conclusively proven several hundred billion times that dozens if not hundreds of democrats attempted the first-ever political coup in this nation's history.

The evidence is staggering, overwhelming, absolutely conclusive.

Yet, NOTHING WILL EVER!!!! BE DONE ABOUT IT.

Period.

[philman_36]

Not gonna research for you.

That's to be expected as you won't even research for yourself.

Bye, bot.

[Cassius Flavia Agrippa]

Bye.

[cymbeline]

“Are you serious, Clark?”

Trump only wants Hillary knocked off her pedestal and her reputation ruined. Pardoning her will demonstrate his mercy.

[j.havenfarm]

Sigh. Done.

[John S Mosby]

So, the current AG appoints not one, but two Special Counsels. And uh... the AG serves at the pleasure of the President, and so.. may be directed to appoint them. And doubly be shown by so doing to not be obstructing justice— but performing his duty as Chief Law Enforcement Officer.

One, to investigate the CRIME of misrepresentation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court warrant filings, as to statements of fact and falsified documentation— to include 1.) illegal “unmasking” of US Citizens, the so called “hop skip” method of surveillance information that concerns US Citizens who were NOT targets of the Foreign individual, and who, by Law, are therefore masked in any surveillance. Illegal use of this unmasking was: warrantless violation of the 4th Amendment rights of these individuals, and releasing/leaking this information selectively to the news media to achieve political goals, and to function as opposition research for a private political party, namely the Democrats.

Two: A special counsel, named to investigate the criminal acts of DOJ and FBI officials in their deliberate, and executive ordered actions while looking into the violation of the then Secretary of State of the US, in using several different computer servers which were not US State Dept. secure servers, nor were installed or used in a SCIF or with State Dept computer security modalities. The crime: Violation of USC 18 (no intent need be demonstrated) and the Espionage Act. There would be at least 10 federal crimes to be investigated for such an appointment, and meet that requirement.

If there is already a Grand Jury at work on indictments of Comey, Brennan, Yates, Clapper, Rice, Powell, Clinton and President Obamaumao, and ValJar— then that investigation might overlap, and will share the appropriate investigatory information. Or, it will not be needed at all— with indictments handed down forthwith to the scared crapless individuals who thought they’d never get caught. This is a BIG deal— bigger than the Watergate “scandal”.

So, for the moment- let’s see what the Congress is briefed on, and in what setting (closed door, classified?) to see who LEAKs and commits yet another federal crime (Meaning Sen. Warner, VA, and Adam Schiff, CA dems from both Intel commitees). Gonna be exciting and require vigilance.

[philman_36]

So, the current AG appoints not one, but two Special Counsels.

A Special Counsel investigates the executive branch.
The people you mention are no longer part of the executive branch/government.
Too many forget that simple fact.

No SC is needed nor is one required. Use the usual process for any potential crime that may have been committed.

For instance -

Trump on Mueller Probe: "This Was An Illegal Takedown That Failed"
And it began illegally, and hopefully, somebody is going to look at the other side.

That "somebody", in all of these matters, should be the AG/US Attorneys and Wray/FBI, not a SC.

JMO

[John S Mosby]

No, a Special Counsel investigates whatever the AG decides needs to be investigated- the sole authority to determine the scope of the special counsel’s inquiry rests with the Attorney General, by the regs created by the DOJ following the expiring of the Special Prosecutor Law caused by the Ken Starr Clinton pursuit. In the absence of a new law, the DOJ came up with the process.

The jurisdiction of the inquiry is determined by “a specific factual statement” about the matter to be investigated, which is provided by the Attorney General to the special counsel at the outset of the appointment, on the Federal level (one wonders what factual statement was supplied by Rosenstein for Mueller’s— it was, however written after Muellers invest began (back dated however by the weasel).

For example: In 2003, during the George W. Bush administration, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel to investigate the Plame affair by Deputy Attorney General James Comey after the recusal of Attorney General John Ashcroft (hmm sound familiar?). The Plame affair was about a journalist Bob Novak revealing the identity of a so called agent under cover... and the WH and other agencies were thought to be invovled. It is Federal level, not just Executive Branch.

So, former fedgov people, most recently involved in the abuse of FISA warrants— are still within the gaze of the AG to decide this, and frankly based on the referrals from Judiciary and Intelligence committees of Congress— these “former” fedgov employees ARE able to be investigated and pursue an indictment.

If no SC is needed, then fine. Barr will proceed (and indeed may have given the continuing support to one that is already in place— US Atty Huber of Utah- controversial- but he did just have a series of meetings with Barr and Whitaker). It only takes the will to move forward (like Comey did with Fitzgerald- designed to mess with Repub. Pres. Bush).

And Uranium 1 looms large and Iran/obamaumaogate as well- billions of dollars and selling out our national security, again.

[philman_36]

No, a Special Counsel investigates whatever the AG decides needs to be investigated...
Can you show evidence of this? My understanding is that a SC investigates the executive branch. Show me evidence, please, don't just say it is so and expect me to believe it.

And as far as Patrick Fitzgerald and Plame...that started as an investigation of the White House and staff/executive branch as to who leaked her name.

So, former fedgov people, most recently involved in the abuse of FISA warrants— are still within the gaze of the AG to decide this, and frankly based on the referrals from Judiciary and Intelligence committees of Congress— these “former” fedgov employees ARE able to be investigated and pursue an indictment.

No special counsel is needed for that.

[philman_36]

You see, I read things such as this...Special Counsels, Independent Counsels,andSpecial Prosecutors: Legal Authority and Limitations on Independent Executive InvestigationsThe Constitution vests Congress with the legislative power, which includes authority to establish federal agencies and conduct oversight of those entities. Criminal investigations and prosecutions, however, are generally regarded as core executive functions assigned to the executive branch. Because of the potential conflicts of interest that may arise when the executive branch investigates itself, there have often been calls for criminal investigations by prosecutors with independence from the executive branch. In response, Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have used both statutory and regulatory mechanisms to establish a process for such inquiries. These frameworks have aimed to balance the competing goals of independence and accountability with respect to inquiries of executive branch officials. Snip Special Counsel
The DOJ’s general administrative hiring authority (28 C.F.R. Part 600) authorizes the Attorney General to appoint special counsels. Special counsels exercise more independence than regular DOJ officials and employees, but because the Attorney General generally appoints, supervises, and may remove special counsels, they are considered to be less independent than independent counsels were. (The term “special counsel,”when used in the context of independent criminal investigations of executive officials, is entirely distinct from the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, which investigates certain federal personnel practices.)
Carte blanche isn't given to investigate anything and everything that I can see.

Please, share what information you have.

[philman_36]

Of note regarding Patrick Fitzgerald... It should be noted that the Attorney General also possesses general statutory authority to appoint DOJ staff to conduct or coordinate particular investigations.80 DOJ has used this authority previously to appoint individuals who were referred to as “special counsels” to investigate particular matters.81 This authority differs from the special counsel regulations because it involves assignment of an internal agency official rather than an individual from outside the government.82 For example, in 2003, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey (acting in place of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had recused himself from the investigation) used this statutory authority to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald to lead an investigation of whether White House or other federal officials unlawfully leaked the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency officer to a reporter.83 While referred to as a special counsel, Fitzgerald was serving as a U.S. Attorney when named to lead the investigation, precluding an appointment under the special counsel regulations.84 While an individual referred to as a “special counsel” thus may be appointed under either the general statutory authority or under the specific special counsel regulations, those named under the regulations might be viewed as possessing more independence, as they are appointed from outside the agency and are insulated by the regulations from removal except for cause.