Posted on 07/23/2017 9:31:27 AM PDT by Cboldt
Rod Rosenstein violated DoJ Regulations when he appointed a Special Counsel. Then Special Counsel Mueller overstepped his jurisdiction. Let's break that down. Here is the appointment.
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. S: 600.4(a).
DOJ Order 3215-2017: Appointment of Special Counsel Mueller
Accompanying May 17, 2017 Press Release
Here is the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.
Comey March 20, 2017 Testimony
28 CFR 600, the DOJ regulation covering Special Counsel, requires that the DOJ transfer a criminal investigation. Special Counsel has no place in a counterintelligence mission. Here is the opening of 28 CFR 600.1.
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and [conflict of interest plus public interest]
Substitute Comey's March 20 testimony into Order 3915-2017, and the Order opens like this:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the counterintelligence mission of investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election investigation ...
For talking purposes, overlook Rosenstein's improvident and unauthorized transfer of a counterintelligence investigation to a Special Counsel. Maybe that was the only way to dispose of the seditious bomb that Comey set.
Look at the scope of jurisdiction given to Mueller. There is more than one way to analyze the scope of Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller, both end up in the same place, that he is constrained to investigate CAMPAIGN-RELATED matters - and of course obstruction, perjury and so on if anybody tries to fool him on CAMPAIGN-RELATED inquiries.
Rosenstein can only act as AG for matters that AG Sessions has recused from. AG Sessions has only formally recused from matters relating to the Trump campaign.
Comey's March 20 testimony creates this investigative structure:
The "nature of any links between individuals and Russia" is subordinate or secondary to investigating Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Mueller and his acolytes are divorcing the predicate of campaign contact. They read the grant as authorization to investigate the "nature of any links between individuals and Russia", whether that link has anything to do with the campaign or not.
DOJ Order 3915-2017 is even more direct about the authorized scope of investigation. It speaks for itself, with one detail deserving mention.
Remove a certain phrase, and the scope of investigation becomes clear.
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and the campaign of President Donald Trump"
When looking at corporate crime, crimes committed by employees off the job are not assigned to the corporation. The target of Mueller's investigation is supposed to be the campaign.
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.