Posted on 05/04/2018 5:46:02 AM PDT by bitt
One of the most frequent questions about Deputy Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein circles around his decision to reauthorize the FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant used against Carter Page and by extension the Trump campaign. In this outline we take the timeline and overlay new information that helps to understand what was going on:
Why did Rosenstein renew that sketchy FISA warrant July 18th, 2017? Why did Mueller request clarity two weeks later on August 2nd, 2017?
To understand the dynamic we must remind ourselves what was known at key dates in the investigative decision-making. None of this is intended to exhibit an opinion toward the motives of those making decisions; however, in hindsight we can clearly outline what was known and what was not known at the time these decisions were made.
Recently we have gained clarity toward the scope of investigative evidence held by Robert Mueller. Thanks to some debriefing interviews by ‘witness’ Michael Caputo we more thoroughly understand what evidence is held by Robert Mueller; and, more importantly the scale of that evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion about how it was obtained.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
p
Mueller's jusrisdiction in that case was being challenged, and he needed a win there or else the bulk of his efforts would be exposed as a house of cards.
Rosenstein had testified before Congress that Mueller was well in control, "no fishing expeditions here," so shared the need to shore up the house of cards.
Absent a challenge in open court, neither Mueller nor Rosenstein had any need to clarify the scope of the fishing expedition. The letter makes it clear, anybody associated with the Trump campaign is fair game, for anything they did, ever. Identify the people, search for crimes.
never forget Brennan:
Brennan:
4 May: WND: Congress blasts CIA’s politics in Russia probe
House reveals intel community’s ‘tradecraft failings’
http://www.wnd.com/2018/05/congress-blasts-cias-politics-in-russia-probe/
updated:
4 May: Lifezette: 40 Questions Special Counsel Robert Mueller Needs to Answer Now
A Republican lawmaker contends the prosecutor has a lot to explain about his present job and prior posts as well
by Rep. Louie Gohmert Updated 04 May 2018 at 7:49 AM
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/40-questions-that-special-counsel-robert-mueller-needs-to-answer-now/
Because there is simply no way, no method, no protocol, no procedure for removing the cloud of suspicion from a conservative.
If Sundance is trying to hint that Rosenstein’s ‘clarification’ of Mueller’s jurisdiction was among other things to investigate the FBI anti-Trump ‘small group’ of Page, Strzok et al, I don’t see any basis to believe that.
Sundance does a lot of great work, but he keeps clinging to the notion that Mueller and Rosenstein are really ‘white hats’ and are, contrary to public perception, actually cleaning up corruption in the deep state.
One problem with this theory is that Mueller’s staff of chosen lawyers would never allow this. Mueller has basically hired the team that would have been a lot of Hillary’s high DOJ appointees. Rosenstein’s monster is like a shadow Hillary DOJ running around trying to settle scores on her behalf with no one reining it in, with Sessions, Rosenstein and Mueller protected by the McConnell/Ryan GOP-e and the Schumer/Pelosi Dems in order to forestall any accountability on what is going on.
Sundance aka mark bradman is seldom right. His theories are numerous, his facts are usually speculation and his predictions are fantasy.
Proof of his shoddy reporting in just this article is his description of DAG Rosenstein as “Dep Asst AG”. There is NO such position. Anyone reading the news for the past 15 months would know that Rosenstein is the Dep AG, the number two position in the DOJ. This is a an example of Bradmans sloppy writing—something his cult acolytes refuse to see.
Why the Justice Department Is Defiant?
Wall Street Journal | May 3, 2018 | Kimberley A. Strassel
Posted on 05/04/2018 5:42:10 AM PDT by reaganaut1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3652545/posts
>>I think Mueller’s request for clarity and the letter response from Rosenstein was driven mostly by events in the Manafort case.<<
I think it’s more likely that the clarification was needed to keep Mueller and Horowitz (and eventually Huber) from bumping heads.
The real collusion story obviously resides in the Democrat/Hillary circles and if Mueller followed his original charge, he would have ended up investigating the FBI and DOJ, Fusion GPS, Hillary’s campaign, etc. The new instructions probably served to limit the scope of his original charge, as indicated by the last part of Rosenstein’s letter where he says that anything outside of the scope of the investigations listed there must first be cleared with Rosenstein.
I see zero chance of that. The charge read:
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;
The way Mueller and Rosenstein took that charge, the first prong is "individuals associated with the campaign," followed by some connection, at any time, with Russia.
I think that is a misread or misapplication or reversal of the intended order of investigation. The way i see it, the first prong is connection between the campaign and Russia.
To put it in another form, Mueller should be handling --only-- what Sessions is recused from. Sessions is recused from investigating the campaign. But he is not recused from investigating or prosecuting Manafort or Gates for earlier tax or FARA violations, and he (Sessions) is not recused from investigating and prosecuting 13 Russian trolls.
Of course Mueller should be able to prosecute process crimes if he is lied to or deliberately misled on his mission of investigating the campaign.
As for the motive for Rosenstein to put the misread of the charge into writing, addressed to Mueller - I see it as to facilitate Mueller's prosecution of Manafort and Gates. Timing fits perfect for that. The "scope clarification" letter to Mueller has zero helpful value in the context of FISA applications.
Sundance never mentions the motions in the Manafort case, which is where this "scope clarification" memorandum surfaced. I don;t blame him, there is much going on. But I don't buy the reasoning or speculation he offers in this article.
>>If Sundance is trying to hint that Rosenstein’s ‘clarification’ of Mueller’s jurisdiction was among other things to investigate the FBI anti-Trump ‘small group’ of Page, Strzok et al, I don’t see any basis to believe that.
Sundance does a lot of great work, but he keeps clinging to the notion that Mueller and Rosenstein are really ‘white hats’ and are, contrary to public perception, actually cleaning up corruption in the deep state.<<
I don’t think that’s what he’s suggesting at all. In fact, Rosenstein’s clarifying letter probably did the opposite and walled off Mueller from investigating any of the internal FBI/DOJ/FISA mess so that Horowitz and Huber could do their jobs without butting heads with Mueller.
Instead, he appears to be suggesting that Rosenstein didn’t have the relevant information on Strzok and Page prior to signing the FISA request and then felt the need to limit Mueller once he knew what was actually happening in his department.
I think at the end, he’s hinting that he’s now unsure whether Rosenstein is wearing a black, white, or gray hat and is leaving it up to readers to guess for themselves.
Whatever one thinks of Sundance, he does pull dates and events together in a very useful manner. And in many cases his speculations as to what the underlying meaning is can be at least interesting, and sometimes even correct.
By the way, I’ve seen little mention of the fact that the House committee has rescheduled its interview with IG Horowitz from May 8th to a later date, which implies that Horowitz’s report isn’t yet ready to be released.
Yes, but as I recall, either point (ii) or (iii) authorized him to investigate anything that came up as a part of his investigation into point (i). In other words, it was a very open ended investigative charge.
The new charge letter, as indicated by the last paragraph, limited that charge and required Mueller to clear any other avenues with Rosenstein before pursuing them.
He already had the authorization to investigate Manafort and Gates, as indicated by the fact he was already doing so. But the new letter, unless one of the redacted items dealt with the FISA court, would have restricted him from getting into the FISA matter, which would make sense since Horowitz and associated prosecutors are assigned to that.
Those parts essentially cover the process crimes, and if the goal is to investigate the Trump campaign, don't create justification to reach back 5 years.
But if the process is "identify people on the Trump campaign" first, then go fishing for crimes, yeah, pretty open ended. and utter nonsense as a matter of principle. Mueller went on a "find the person, then seek the crime" without limiting his investigation to the campaign calendar.
Charge (ii) reads: “Any matter that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and”
That hardly limits it to “process crimes” and essentially gave Mueller authority to go wherever the investigation led him.
The August letter presumably put stricter limits on his charge, but point (ii) appears pretty open-ended. If he found anything at all, he could pursue it (prior to the August letter).
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.
