Replies

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:...

The threefold type of recommendations that Huber and his subordinates were tasked to perform ARE all rescource based recommendations.

(memo excerpt)

"These senior prosecutors will report directly to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, as appropriate, and will make 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."

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.