Posted on 10/25/2018 4:50:19 PM PDT by jazusamo
Roughly one year after U.S. Attorney John Huber was appointed to investigate whether accusations that the FBI and Justice Department abused their powers during the 2016 election season merit prosecution, his work remains shrouded in mystery.
Likely witnesses tell The Washington Times that they haven’t heard from him, though they are eager to tell what they know.
Nor has Mr. Huber kept congressional overseers in the loop on his activities.
“I would just like to know what he’s doing,” Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, told The Times. “I’ll take anything. All I know is that we haven’t heard a single thing about what he’s doing.”
Mr. Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees, said those panels have not received any reports or updates from Mr. Huber since his appointment. He and Rep. Mark Meadows, North Carolina Republican, sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week asking for an update.
Mr. Meadows told The Times it is imperative that Mr. Huber appear before Congress to detail what he has been doing.
“I have not seen a lot of evidence that Mr. Huber has done anything other than be appointed by Jeff Sessions,” he said. “It’s been portrayed that he’s making great progress, but I’m not sure there is a whole lot to show for it other than rhetoric right now. I’m not aware of any substantial work that he’s doing.”
Mr. Sessions secretly picked Mr. Huber last fall to dig into whether the FBI misused its power when it obtained a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. He also is supposed to be reviewing whether the FBI mishandled investigations into 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
No. I am no longer a believer in a “secret sting,” but in a comment to the press, Sessions said Huber was there to “review” the OIG work and “make recommendations” as to whether or not certain cases “needed additional resources.”
He is not just on a review board. That still doesn’t mean he’s doing a damned thing.
Woof. Woof.
That’s my other dog imitation.
Have a little faith, baby. Have a little faith.
LOL. That's what they said last November.
The myth lives on.
“John Huber’s FBI-Justice Department probe shrouded in mystery”
The reason is he isn’t doing shit.
“... upon the conclusion of his review, will receive his recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a special counsel.”
That’s not someone who is convening grand juries and prosecuting. It’s an internal review, the reason for the Advisory Committee.
They will ignore the facts and continue to insist that Huber is doing something.
I would like to be wrong...
5.56mm
I no longer believe President Trump (or any other President) has enough power to compel his own Justice Department to do their jobs. He still has the awesome power of the bully pulpit - and his own big mouth - and he is using both well enough to terrify the Deep State, but actual law enforcement is going to remain impossible to achieve when the “controlling legal authorities” have been so thoroughly subverted.
I hear you, I would too.
“Huber was not appointed to prosecute anyone outside his jurisdiction. Can’t. 6th Amendment directly prohibits it.”
In the letter to Chuck Grassley that publicly named Huber, AG Sessions touted his successful history leading task forces. Task Forces are multi-jurisdictional - commonly used to investigate wide-ranging criminal operations like drug cartels, gangs or terrorist organizations.
With the AG in the loop, it would be routine to coordinate the filing of charges in whatever jurisdiction they determine appropriate.
Trump has spent the last 21 months building his political capital, so that he can use his constitutional powers, to rein in the Deep State at the DOJ and FBI.
Trump has said that at some point he will get involved with his DOJ and FBI.
Hopefully it's after the election.
More specifically, in the Sessions and Boyd letters, Huber was only tasked to advise on any needed resources.
There is no reason to think that he's doing anything else.
I have that letter, too. It does not appoint him to a task force, nor authorize him to prosecute anyone.
All it does, is task Huber with looking into stuff already investigated, and see whether a 2nd Special Counsel should be appointed. And report the results straight to Rosensessions. Which no doubt, he already has done.
The end. Nothing else happening.
I am sure he is cashing his govt checks.
“in the Sessions and Boyd letters, Huber was only tasked to advise on any needed resources.”
These letters do not task Huber to do anything. They are letters to other people.
The actual taskings to Huber have not been publicly revealed.
There is no reason to assume that Huber’s tasks are strictly limited to those items publicly revealed in those letters. In fact, DOJ policy prohibits publicly discussing, or even confirming the existence of investigations that are underway.
Any actual investigations would have had to be omitted from those publicly released letters.
But if a US Attorney (like Huber) becomes aware of credible information of a crime, they would have a duty to pursue it. That responsibility is routinely discharged by referring the information to the US Attorney with the appropriate jurisdiction. The DOJ IG has the same duty to refer credible information of a crime, and to do so in a timely manner.
“I have that letter, too. It does not appoint him to a task force, nor authorize him to prosecute anyone.”
I make some points about that in Post 35.
- The letter is not Huber’s tasking. The extent of Huber’s taskings have not been revealed.
- US Attorney’s have an automatic responsibility to pursue investigation if made aware of credible indications of a crime.
-His review of the IG is a double check on the IG, who also has a duty to refer criminal indications. Redundant insurance.
- Either of those should (automatically) result in investigation/prosecution, without involvement of the AG.
- The only acceptable reasons to not pursue credible indications of crime are jurisdiction (which would require referral), lack of resources (which the AG assures Sen Grassley he will provide), or interference with other investigations (which would require coordination - in complex cases through a dedicated task force).
These letters do not task Huber to do anything. They are letters to other people.
You're nitpicking what I wrote while you avoid my obvious point.
The letters INFORM CONGRESS that Huber was tasked to advise on any resources that might be needed. There were no further taskings described in those letters.
The actual taskings to Huber have not been publicly revealed.
You make my point.
There is no real evidence that Huber has been tasked to do more than what appears in the Boyd/Sessions letters.
“You’re nitpicking what I wrote while you avoid my obvious point.” (that Huber is not tasked to investigate - therefore not investigating)
To which I would reply: “You’re nitpicking what I wrote while you avoid my obvious point.” (that tasking to investigate could not be revealed in a public letter, and he has an automatic inherent duty to investigate, as a US Attorney).
“The actual taskings to Huber have not been publicly revealed.” “You make my point.” (that he has not been tasked)
On the contrary, if he HAD been tasked to investigate, that could NOT be publicly revealed. So the absence of a public tasking does NOT prove the ABSENCE of a tasking to investigate. Actual investigations are NOT supposed to be publicly revealed.
If however, he was NOT investigating, that COULD (potentially) be publicly confirmed.
“There is no real evidence that Huber has been tasked to do more than what appears in the Boyd/Sessions letters.”
And there is no reason that any such evidence should be publicized by a professional prosecutor. In fact they should NOT, so as not to alert the targets of the investigation, and to not publicly impugn targets who are later found to be innocent.
Prosecutors evidence is for the court, not manipulating public opinion.
I guess it will take some time for expectations to return to normal, from the lawlessness of the Clinton/Obama era.
Does that mean investigation too, because the quote you posted mentions trial only?
On the contrary, if he HAD been tasked to investigate, that could NOT be publicly revealed. So the absence of a public tasking does NOT prove the ABSENCE of a tasking to investigate. Actual investigations are NOT supposed to be publicly revealed.
You still make my point as I stated above in bold.
If however, he was NOT investigating, that COULD (potentially) be publicly confirmed
They neither confirm nor deny investigations.
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.