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.