....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?
Yes. This is kabuki, without the cool make-up and costumes. But it’s just as stylized.
I saw an over confident Acting AG Rosenstein in a recent interview, on CSpan, I believe, thumbing his nose at Congressional demands about how he would not be cow towed, or some such phrase. He seemed to love Sessions job.
He either has leave to sound that obnoxious toward Congress (for the time being) or else... what?
The president has not intervened, but has hurled the book at Sessions and Co, while declaring he is staying away from the whole cabal at Justice Dept, until which time Mueller ends his investigation (or, “witch hunt”,) as the president continues to describe it. He describes it both ways. Which is it?
It’s a two sided mirror. One normal vision, and the other magnified, depending on what? Mood? Events? Midterms? Unknown variables? I am sure I don’t know. LOL!
Your questions are excellent. This judge isn’t beating to anyone’s drum but Lady Jusice, it seems. Hopefully, he can mash the pedal on the Mueller team exposing the limits of their jurisdiction.
Thank you for helping me focus on the relevant areas of that document.
We ALL want to hear those explanations you mention!
I’ve not ever thought of RR as WH - leveraged gray at best has been my perspective. I guess I’ll continue to hide and watch and see what happens.....because we are watching a MOVIE! LOL!
>>anyone still think rosenstein is a white hat? <<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I do.
He is taking the brunt for refusing to give Congress the documents they want.
But that is easily explained by needing to protect investigations and prosecutions.
I sort of like Grassley; but, he never fails to come across as naive ... like he just cannot comprehend he is surrounded by traitors against the USA, right there in Congress.
I’ve certainly never suggested that Rosenstein was a white hat. Early on it was pointed out that there was no predicate crime and hence no authority for a special counsel.
In addition, the Dag had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself from the appointment. Instead he appointed someone who also had a conflict of interest.
Total Scam by GOPe.