Posted on 07/23/2017 9:31:27 AM PDT by Cboldt
Sessions should start by firing Rod for the appearance of collusion with Mueller.
Zainab Ahmad, TBD
Rush Atkinson, He donated $200 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
Michael Dreeben, TBD
Andrew Goldstein, Goldstein donated $3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.
Adam Jed, TBD
Lisa Page, TBD
Elizabeth Prelogar, She donated $250 each to Clinton’s campaign and the Obama Victory Fund 2016 and 2012
James Quarles, donated more than $30,000 to various Democratic campaigns in 2016
Jeannie Rhee, Rhee donated a total of $5,400 to Clinton’s campaign in 2015 and 2016, and a total of $4,800 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and 2011. Clinton Foundation Lawyer and former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under Barack Obama.
Brandon Van Grack, donated $286.77 to Obama’s campaign in 2008
Andrew Weissmann, Weissmann donated $2,300 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008, $2,000 to the DNC in 2006 and at least $2,300 to the Clinton campaign in 2007
Aaron Zebley, TBD
Aaron Zelinsky, TBD
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/robert-mueller-stocks-staff-democrat-donors/
Comey was deeply involved in the Collusion too.
“Comey was deeply involved in the Collusion too.”
Hell yes he was. Let’s not forget he was allowed to postpone his congressional testimony so he could confer Mueller. So Comey was allowed to huddle with the SC investigating the President who fired him before testifying no problem right?
I’ve posted your analysis at CTH.
The issue here is the investigation leading to impeachment (formal charges).
The investigation should be done probably by the House IMO and not the DOJ because of prima facia conflict of interest.
Bump - nice artwork! Thanks.
Neither Mueller nor anybody on his team is "conflicted out" by the specific relationships named in the DoJ conflict regulation, 28 CFR 45.2. But the framing of 28 CFR 45.2 is not applicable. It is the wrong test.
What has to be met is the standard in 28 CFR 600, the Special Counsel regulation. The whole point of appointing a Special Counsel is to remove the appearance of bias.
The question is simple, do the people believe that Mueller's team is unbiased? That's not a legal standard, it isn't in the code book. But we can sure as heck measure it. Use polling.
The question is whether or not the people will accept the results as coming from an unbiased investigator. If the people view this collection of professionals as biased, then the team must change. Otherwise the investigation effort is a total waste.
You raise a good argument here. What is the purpose of this investigation? Congress very much likes that Comey insinuated (but expressly stated the opposite) a crime might have been committed.
Congress, being 100% risk averse and 80% against Trump was pleased to get the hand up, and went along with the false premise, never stated premise, that a special counsel was necessary, "in order to remove the appearance of bias." Congress wants the Special Counsel to do the dirty work. Same happened in the Fiske/Starr endeavor.
But in order for this approach to be legitimate, there must be a credible allegation of a crime.
If that can't be done, then release the Special Counsel, and put the monkey on Congress.
-- The investigation should be done probably by the House IMO and not the DOJ because of prima facia conflict of interest. --
Congress is per se biased. It's function is to be partisan. Nobody in Congress is unbiased, by definition. But when the point of the investigation is to impeach and remove a president or other official for something that is not a crime, then by golly, it's theirs and theirs alone to have at.
The attorneys fail the tests of 45.2 anyway. The optics aren’t good though.
No they don't. That is a bad place to argue. The starting point of 45.2 is "a personal or political relationship," in this case with the campaign. No other entity has a stake in the outcome.
Any prosecutor that does not have a stake in the Trump campaign is therefore not barred by this regulation. Comey has no more stake in this (on paper) than you or I do. The question of criminal conduct by the Trump campaign is an issue of public import. The crime would be against the public, not against Comey. Not against Mueller. Not against any of Mueller's army.
Jump to arguing the point of appointing an independent prosecutor. Do you believe they are unbiased? Do you trust them to be unbiased? Do they view the Trump campaign in a neutral fashion?
If they gave money to an opposing campaign, they are NOT NEUTRAL. They have the appearance of bias. No further inquiry necessary.
bkmk
Then John McCain has nothing to worry about.
They've been howling. They are howling. They'll continue to howl no matter what happens or doesn't happen.
Tweedledumb, Tweedledumber, & Tweedlethee.
That part is in case there are "directly related" crimes that aren;t specified in the primary purpouse of the investigation. Say for example that the Trump campaign issued a death thret or otherwise extorted money or services for the campaign. Extortion is then directly related to another illegal activity.
But if Manafort was money laundering on the side, in 2008, that is not directly related to any crime the campaign might have otherwise perpetrated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.