Posted on 10/25/2018 4:50:19 PM PDT by jazusamo
Note that the OP is about those with insider knowledge pointing out that they see no action.
People quizzed by the FBI or even by grand juries are under no obligation to keep their interrogation secret. They tend to blab quite a lot if the questions are about political figures.
The Sessions-Huber Stealth Prosecution Theory is an article of religious faith, or a kind of reverse Illuminati conspiracy theory. It will morph however it needs to in order to maintain itself.
Yup.
Add to that, if Huber were actually doing any kind of damage to the Deep State, anonymous sources and the media would be giving Huber the Ken Starr treatment.
You say: “They neither confirm nor deny investigations.”
Yet still argue that not confirming an investigation, indicates that there is no investigation.
As they say, the absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
What of the US Attorney’s duty under the law to pursue and prosecute crime?
They have the highest level of responsibility to pursue crime of anyone in Government. Higher than a police officer, higher than an FBI agent, higher than the President himself.
That is why having a US Attorney (one in particular, known to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee) review the evidence, was such a powerful argument that no Special Counsel was needed. Not another peep about a Special Prosecutor from those responsible (and in the know), ever since. That in itself is a bit of circumstantial evidence.
You seem to assume that either the US Attorney is just a subordinate functionary within the Department of Justice, or that Huber will corruptly ignore his duty under the law and his oath.
US Attorneys are established in the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789. They predate the Department of Justice, and the prosecutorial responsibility is vested in them personally (along with Subpoena and Grand Jury Powers), requiring each of the 93 to be confirmed by Congress.
The situation is one of at least triple redundancy, requiring the IG, AG and a US Attorney (from outside of DC, as requested by Conservatives in Congress, nominated by President Trump, and endorsed by Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch) each to independently corruptly willing to violate their sworn duty to the law, to avoid a criminal investigation, if supporting facts come to their attention.
No. For the third time now I will repeat my argument.
There is no real evidence that shows that Huber has been tasked to do more than what appears in the Boyd/Sessions letters.
“People quizzed by the FBI or even by grand juries are under no obligation to keep their interrogation secret. They tend to blab quite a lot”
But they haven’t in the McCabe Grand Jury. And they didn’t in the James Wolfe leak investigation. Or the recent indictment of the Treasury Department.
McCabe's leak was a leak that actually hurt the Obama and Clinton. Wolfe was another leaker who actually embarrassed John Brennan.
The Treasury indictments are similar.
These are Deep State prosecutions. They are not signs of the DOJ cleaning up its own act.
“For the third time now I will repeat my argument.
There is no real evidence that shows that Huber has been tasked to do more than what appears in the Boyd/Sessions letters. “
Clearly, on this thread, you have been promoting the view that Huber’s role is a sham, and no significant investigation is underway.
One misstatement of fact that you made earlier, “Huber was only tasked to advise on any needed resources” may be instructive. That statement (erroneously) limits the scale of the effort far below what is even publicly released in those letters.
First, the recommendations requested in the memos are in fact threefold: whether new investigations should be opened, whether resources should be added to existing investigations, or whether a Special Counsel should be appointed. In other words, everything referred by the Committee (and more, according to Sessions memo) will be deliberately “evaluated” (without using the forbidden word “investigation”). Note that each of three options is an investigation.
Secondly, Both the Sessions and Boyd memos indicate that the matters referred by the Committee have been directed to MULTIPLE senior federal prosecutors (e.g. US Attorneys). Note the plural. Sessions goes on to state that he has asked John Huber to LEAD this effort.
All the matters referred by the Committee (and more) have been directed to US Attorneys, AND an experienced task force leader has been assigned.
All of the US Attorneys involved have the independent power (and the sworn duty) to investigate and prosecute within their jurisdiction. Saying they might “recommend” opening a new investigation, glosses over the fact that they are duty bound to do so if there is cause, and can be fired if they are negligent in doing so, or prosecuted if they corruptly fail to do so.
So just what is actually in the memos is far greater than the dismissive misstatement that you made of Huber’s scope, without even the undefined “more” that the Attorney General reported to his Constitutional and legal oversight authority.
Keep in mind that all of the US Attorneys were nominated by the Trump Administration. All of those involved (clearly at a minimum Jessie K. Liu in DC), as well as Huber, Sessions, and Horowitz would have to be criminally corrupt and engaged in a conspiracy for there NOT to be significant investigations underway.
These official statements from the Department of Justice, and the magnitude of the resources available to those involved is POWERFUL EVIDENCE that there is significant investigation underway.
That’s humor, right?
The McCabe grand jury is known because a witness blabbed. The DOJ does not announce or confirm grand juries until after they’re done.
No one in DC is in charge of anything. They all have their own individual kingdoms and report to no one. The Democrats have dismantled our country.
“The McCabe Grand Jury is known because a witness blabbed.”
So if an investigator wanted to keep the subject of an investigation in the dark, while they were under surveillance, they would be wise to delay testimony by witnesses likely to talk, until the very end, and place them under threat of penalty if they did divulge information inappropriately.
Probably after a few cases, they would have learned that first hand. After many years of experience, those very best prosecutors that eventually rise to become one of the 93 Congressionally confirmed US Attorneys, would be reasonably proficient at managing that aspect of investigations.
It’s not like they just fell off the turnip truck.
The threefold type of recommendations that Huber and his subordinates were tasked to perform ARE all rescource based recommendations.
(memo excerpt)
My paraphrase does not limit the scale of the effort. It's erroneous to say that it does. Their threefold tasks concerning criminal investigations are to recommend new resources, add to current resources or to use a new Special Council as a resource. Those are all "resource" based tasks.
Secondly, Both the Sessions and Boyd memos indicate that the matters referred by the Committee have been directed to MULTIPLE senior federal prosecutors (e.g. US Attorneys). Note the plural. Sessions goes on to state that he has asked John Huber to LEAD this effort. All the matters referred by the Committee (and more) have been directed to US Attorneys, AND an experienced task force leader has been assigned. All of the US Attorneys involved have the independent power (and the sworn duty) to investigate and prosecute within their jurisdiction.
US attorneys don't have independent power. What you are describing is a utopian, anti Constitutional, liberal (I'm not calling you liberal) and Deep State framework of the Executive Branch that's not correct. All power in the executive branch evolves down from the Chief Executive, and in this case to the AG, then to the DAG and then to the US Attorneys.
In that chain of commend, the Chief Executive says that he's currently uninvolved. Trump's lawyers even acknowledge this.
Next in the chain of command is the AG who has recused himself, both expressing his intentions to recuse under oath and in a follow up memo, on all matters connected to the campaign in anyway, which would include all matters connected to Clinton and all of the current existing Deep State matters.
Next in the chain of command is the DAG Rod Rosenstein who is corrupt (I could list many examples) and who is not recused.
The Obama holdover, and Jeff Sessions recommended John Huber is next in the chain of command and answers to the Deep State Rod Rosenstein.
The memo states that Huber is to "lead" his group of US attorneys and report appropriately, in this case to the (corrupt, Deep State) DAG.
As I pointed out on this thread there is no evidence that there are any current Deep State prosecutions. The three examples that you gave are actually prosecutions that punish people who have actually embarrassed the Deep State.
And while I can't totally prove a negative like you want me to do, all evidence that I've given you describe a situation where the prosecution of Deep State criminal activity cannot reasonable be expected to be occurring.
1. Opening a new investigation is something that US Attorney’s are inherently already resourced to do. Most (if not in a tiny jurisdiction) have hundreds of Assistant US Attorneys (federal prosecutors) each of whom has staff support, as well as the services of law enforcement agencies. A Special Counsel is called for in cases where there is a real or perceived conflict of interest, not due to resource constraints. I guess if you abstract far enough, you could say that everything is about resources (or personnel, or policy), but that would be beyond the range of being able to make useful distinctions anymore.
2. The US Attorneys are directly vested with power in the Constitution. Prosecutorial authority is vested in them directly, not through the Attorney General. Like the Supreme Court and the US Attorneys, The Attorney General’s office was also created in the Constitution, and established in the Judiciary Act of 1789, but not in a supervisory, or chain of command role over the US Attorneys. The Department of Justice was established much later. Like the Department of Education exercises influence over colleges through controlling various funds, DOJ can pressure US Attorneys. Also over the years, various legislation has given DOJ assorted roles and authorities to regulate the US Attorneys, such as through the publication of the US Attorneys’ Manual. What has remained however, is the independent authority (and duty) of the US Attorneys to prosecute crime.
Paging all Q-tips !!!
Thousands of indictments,grand juries, etc.
LOL
Huber hasn’t even talked to Carter Page !!!
Sessions is “the insurance”
P.S. Thanks for not calling me a liberal. I appreciate that. We are all on the same side here.
The US Attorneys are not vested with independent power as a fourth branch of government, in the Constitution.
Prosecutorial authority is vested in them directly, not through the Attorney General. Like the Supreme Court and the US Attorneys, The Attorney General’s office was also created in the Constitution, and established in the Judiciary Act of 1789, but not in a supervisory, or chain of command role over the US Attorneys. The Department of Justice was established much later.
The US Attorneys are part of the Executive Branch and have always reported to the president, first directly, then indirectly through the Department of Treasurey and then indirectly up the DOJ chain. They currently report directly to the DAG.
They are part of the Executive Branch. They are not independent, nor philosophically should they ever be.
You are polite, so I respond with politeness. :)
Yes we are on the same side.
Regards.
“The US Attorneys are directly vested with power in the Constitution.”
“The US Attorneys are not vested with independent power as a fourth branch of government”
They are not a fourth branch of Government, but they are vested with independent power.
The President does not personally have legal arrest powers, but he supervises and commands others who do. The President does not have the legal power to issue a subpoena, or convene Grand Juries to bring serious charges before a court. US Attorneys do - directly.
The President can nominate or fire US Attorneys. The Attorney General can issue all kinds of directives and guidance, and add or subtract budget and personnel positions. But nobody has legal authority to order a US Attorney not to prosecute a crime, if that US Attorney does not agree with the rationale.
Please cite this independent power in the Constitution.
But nobody has legal authority to order a US Attorney not to prosecute a crime, if that US Attorney does not agree with the rationale.
So if a US Attorney is corrupt and either prosecutes or doesn't prosecute a case for nefarious reasons, what is the check and balance??
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.