“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.
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.