I noticed that on reading Rosenstein's grant. The authority cited by Rosenstein did not include 28 USC 600.1 - Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel
The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -This is a weird oversight, seeing as Rosenstein did cite 600.4 for jurisdiction. I take it as a deliberate oversight; which tells me that in Rosenstein's mind, the grounds for appointing a special counsel do NOT exist.(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
However, beyond having grounds for an investigation in the first place, the statute requires conflict of interest and public interest prongs. Rosenstein cited those.
As for existence of an investigation, that threshold was crossed by Comey. The grant describes the scope of Mueller's investigatory view. "The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017."
Read into all of that what you want. My takeaway is that Rosenstein sees the investigation as a politically-motivated witch hunt, and he wants it out of the FBI.
He has a good (conflict of interest) argument that he should not be the one taking up Comey's investigation, because he had Comey fired.
The public interest angle is impossible to satisfy. The DEM machine ginned up its own outrage from thin air, and Comey went along with it. That outrage won't be put back in the bottle.
Thank you for the superb clarity. An explanation such as this one deserved a lot more air time, for the people to get a deserved walk through of the distinctions of law and in statute— of what is said and left unsaid, as you graciously point out.
If this is going to be a “silent coup”, it is we who are silent compared to the rabble and it is we who could lose this thing, by our own continuing silence.
Many thanks, Cb.
Excellent job, thanks.