At your request I have re read the AGs letter. I note that in two places, including his concluding paragraph (third from the end) Sessions specifically repeats that Mr Huber has 3 charges. They do not include anything beyond “ making recommendations to the Attorney General”. This language would NOT have been used if in fact Sessions intended that Huber have normal US Attorney discretion ( which does not require AG approval to conduct investigations and file charges.)
I understand your feeling that, taken as a whole, the letter seems to suggest thar Grassleys concerns are being addressed. In one sense they are because they are being examined by the Dept IG who has the ability to refer alleged crimes to the appropriate US Atty. But, and it is a big But, what sessions has done is not the same as either appointing A Special Counsel or referring to a US Atty with instructions to investigate and take whatever action is appropriate. Instead he has ordered an INTERNAL DOJ REVIEW, the purpose of which is different than a crimnal investigation.
Having mr huber work with the IG is not the same as him being assigned to file criminal charges.
“This language (3 specific things) would NOT have been used if in fact Sessions intended that Huber have normal US Attorney discretion”
I disagree.
I believe that has to do with the subject of the letter - whether or not a Special counsel is needed. His point is that they will consider the need for a Special Prosecutor for every crime they look at. As indications of criminality emerge, they will assess each one to determine the best way to handle it (investigate/prosecute). Either:
1. Open a new investigation
2. Add it to an existing investigation
3. We need a Special Prosecutor for this one.
Overall though, Sessions assures that every issue raised by Grassley’s earlier referrals (and more) is already being handled by DoJ prosecutors, such that no Special Prosecutor is appropriate.
For Sessions to revoke or restrain a Congressionally confirmed US Attorney’s normal discretion to pursue crimes when there is a credible predicate, would be a major obstruction of justice. I think that is an unlikely extreme measure, for which he could be liable (and have his honor besmirched, which has always been a big thing with him).
It is quite possible that the AG oversees the investigation, and coordinates several offices in a big investigation (like this task force), but it would be crossing the line to forbid/restrain investigation/prosecution without a legally valid purpose (like preventing disruption of another investigation).
We will probably see, after the IG Report is released. If the IG publicly says that he made criminal referrals, it will likely become public - i.e. criminal charges will be made.
It won’t be much longer for the investigation into Hillary’s email server, which is the topic of this coming IG Report.
If it is determined that the investigation was inappropriately closed (pretty obvious), then part of the natural remedy would be to re-open that investigation. If so, I would expect that they have already begun investigating Hillary and those related to her e-mail server, and the mis-handling of classified material.