Replies

OK. These threads have been an obsession for a while. I mostly lurk, constantly following rabbit holes. Our task is to grasp what is to come and be prepared to help others. Sustained stress does promote bonding, but an imbalance leads to conflict. WWG1WGA.

I’ve been thinking a lot about RR and RM. Grassley’s letter asks explicit questions. I watched almost an hour of RR speaking and taking questions at some forum on CSPAN. I find it difficult to believe that the person I saw would leave himself so open.

And Mueller. I read his Wiki bio. Considering his WH meet the day before his appointment, why would a 73 (?) year old decorated Marine end as a black hat? His indictments to date? 20-something, 13 Russians, 3 corporations, one who is seeking discovery. Manafort, a plant Q identified. (Q implied more than two plants in the campaign.) And Flynn, but that’s interesting in its own way. What else has he and his team been doing?

The judge and now Grassley want to see RM’s redacted mandate. Many in DC warn against 45 removing either RM or RR, a Constitutional Crisis. The media leaks all sorts of things about the investigation through invisible sources promoting the narrative. It looks bleak for 45…

Of course I feel a sting coming, the twist in the script. Huber has been operational for many months. Per the AG, his mandate includes all the concerns of Grassley, Goodlatte and Gowdy. I admit to knowing little about the AR operation. But the IG has been feeding Huber (theory).

RM’s amended mandate and a release of his findings, the IG release, more stuff from the Congressional Committees, unsealed indictments, my guess is that these will all be harmonious. And damaging to the DS.

Also, Cohen was the #2 finance guy for the RNC. He might know some interesting things from those days or even have some files.

Then again, I’m sipping Bookers.

on point and brought up before but never answered:

....Accordingly, please provide an unredacted copy of the August Memorandum and any other documents delineating, describing, or supporting the jurisdiction and authority of the special counsel and respond in writing to the following questions by May 31, 2018:

1. The August Memorandum states that it addresses the special counsel’s authorization as of the date he was appointed. Why was this memorandum not drafted until August 2017?

2. The regulations authorizing the appointment of a special counsel state that the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) may appoint a special counsel “when he or she determinations that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted.”18 The Appointment Order proscribes the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction by citing specifically “the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.”19 In his March 20 testimony, former Director Comey referred to “the investigation” as a counterintelligence investigation—not a criminal investigation.20

Please explain which portion of which regulation authorizes the appointment of a Special Counsel to conduct a counterintelligence investigation.

3. The Appointment Order does not cite to 28 C.F.R. § 600.1 through § 600.3. However, section 600.1 is the section that describes the grounds necessary to appoint a special counsel. It requires (1) a criminal predicate, and (2) that investigation or prosecution by a U.S. Attorney’s office or litigating unit of DOJ would present a conflict of interest or other extraordinary circumstance.

a. Why does the Order not cite to or rely on section 600.1?

Does the August Memorandum reference section 600.1? If not, why not?

b. What “criminal investigation of a person or matter” did you determine was warranted?

c. Why did your Appointment Order not identify specific crimes to be investigated?

d. What conflict of interest or extraordinary circumstance would have prevented a disinterested U.S. Attorney’s office or litigating unit of the Department from investigating or prosecuting the matter(s) referred to in the Appoint Order and August Memorandum under your supervision?

e. Did you exercise your authority, or consider exercising your authority under section 600.2(b) to “direct that an initial investigation, consisting of such factual inquiry or legal research . . . be conducted in order to better inform the decision?” If not, why not? If so, please describe in detail the scope, methodology, and results of the initial investigation.

f. Did you exercise your authority, or consider exercising your authority under section 600.2(c) to have “the appropriate component of the Department . . . handle the matter” and “mitigate any conflicts of interest [through] recusal of particular officials?” If not, why not? If so, please describe in detail why that option was not considered or exercised.

g. Did you comply with the requirements of section 600.3(b) that require the Attorney General to “consult with the Assistant Attorney General for Administration to ensure an appropriate method of appointment, and to ensure . . . a detailed review of ethics and conflicts of interest issues?” If not, why not? If so, please describe in detail the Assistant Attorney General for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Director Wray May 17, 2018 Page | 6 Administration’s involvement and the results of the ethics and conflicts of interest review.

4. The Appointment Order explicitly states that sections 600.4-600.10 apply to this Special Counsel despite the apparent failure to follow the appointment requirements in sections 600.1-600.3. The Order also cites section 600.4(a) which requires that “[t]he Special Counsel . . . be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Again, under section 600.1 the “matter” is that which the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General determines “warrant[s]” a “criminal investigation.” Is there a “specific factual statement of the matter” that warrants a criminal investigation described in the May 17 Order? In the August Memorandum? What is it?

5. The regulations cited in the Appointment Order authorize the Acting Attorney General to grant to a Special Counsel the powers of a U.S. Attorney.21 To what extent have you considered whether that includes the authority to initiate, supervise, or participate in counterintelligence investigations?

6. Rather than the regulations, the Appointment Order appears to rely instead on general statutory authority of the Attorney General. The statute permits the Attorney General to exercise “all functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice,”22 and the authority to delegate “any function of the Attorney General,”23 and/or the authority to “conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal.”24 Are those statutes, alone or in combination, in your opinion sufficient to authorize a counterintelligence investigation by a Special Counsel? Why or why not?

7. During an all-Senators briefing on May 18, 2017, you were asked by Senator Collins and Judiciary Committee staff whether you had delegated the Attorney General’s FISA approval authority to Special Counsel Mueller. Have you delegated FISA approval authority to the Special Counsel? If so, on what date, and was the delegation done in writing? If it was in writing, please provide a copy to the comitee............

etc etc somebody got some splaining to do....anyone still think rosenstein is a white hat?