Posted on 06/12/2017 6:27:04 PM PDT by Cheerio
FULL TITLE - Judge Napolitano: Sessions Will Be Testifying As A Witness; Dangerous Position, He Should Not Testify
Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano weighs in on Attorney General Jeff Serssions' decision to testify in an open hearing about his contacts with Russians during the 2016 election.
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: [Newt Gingrich] is partially right in that Bob Mueller is not neutral. Prosecutors are not neutral, they prosecute people!
They believe that their targets are guilty and they amass evidence to justify that belief, that is what they do. They fact that Bob Mueller and Jim Comey may be friends, and colleagues, is also of no [matter]
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
In technical vernacular, "Special Counsel," "Special Prosecutor," and "Independent Prosecutor" are different, with the differences being subtle or huge, depending on how the person in the job approaches the job.
All of them have the power to indict and prosecute criminal actions.
The grant of power to Mueller (and all past grants for that matter) is written, and invokes particular regulations. Not laws, but department regulations. The combination of the grant and the regulations describe the scope of investigation and authority. Laws passed by Congress give the DoJ the authority to make regulations. For the most part those laws give the DoJ broad discretion on investigatory and prosecutorial functions.
The normal system is that the investigator is NOT the prosecutor. Too much power in one place. Likewise, the prosecutor is not the investigator, same reason. All these "special" appointment combine investigation and prosecution under one hat. That makes the position one that is inherently amenable to abuse.
Independent prosecutor law had a feature where Congress could appoint one. This has some constitutional issues because Congress is a legislative body, not an enforcement body.
In common vernacular, people use the titles more or less interchangeably, which is okay for talking purposes. There is a need to differentiate when discussing variations on who has the power to create a "special inquisitor," and variations on their scope of authority, and variations on who has "how much" oversight. I think all of the laws include financial oversight via reporting, just to give an idea of the level of detail involved.
Thanks for the kind compliment.
It has been suggested that Sessions recused himself so that he could be a witness in a proceeding like this. There could be more than one reason for the recusal....
BUMP.
I've seen that theory. I'm not sure he's much of a witness to anything though.
The scope and nature of Sessions' recusal is chronically mis-represented. I think 90% of Freepers, and about 100% of the public have an incorrect impression relating to his recusal. DoJ "corrected the record" after Comey's testimony last week, in addition to putting out a press release when Sessions announced his recusal. The facts are out there.
-- There could be more than one reason for the recusal... --
I totally agree with that. The DEMs will try to broaden the recusal. Right now they are asserting Sessions is recused from deliberations on firing Comey. That's nonsense when you think about it. What if there was evidence that Comey was a criminal? Just for talking purposes. Sessions is "recused" from firing Comey? I don't think so.
And before people jump to the conclusion that firing Comey to close the Russia investigation is per se wrong, consider 1) the investigation continues, and 2) facts might show that Comey fabricated or radically embellished this issue - dirty cop framing innocent victims. Is Sessions supposed to let the dirty cop stay in the job? I don't think so.
At any rate, sorry for rambling there, the point I was trying to make is that the scope of recusal is elastic in all sorts of directions, and eventually is a political calculation couched in legal mumbo jumbo. Sessions may agree to avoid touching some issues that he has no obligation to recuse from. Depends on how he anticipates that issue to be resolved.
All of them have the power to indict and prosecute criminal actions.
The grant of power to Mueller (and all past grants for that matter) is written, and invokes particular regulations. Not laws, but department regulations. The combination of the grant and the regulations describe the scope of investigation and authority. Laws passed by Congress give the DoJ the authority to make regulations. For the most part those laws give the DoJ broad discretion on investigatory and prosecutorial functions.
The normal system is that the investigator is NOT the prosecutor. Too much power in one place. Likewise, the prosecutor is not the investigator, same reason. All these "special" appointment combine investigation and prosecution under one hat. That makes the position one that is inherently amenable to abuse.
Independent prosecutor law had a feature where Congress could appoint one. This has some constitutional issues because Congress is a legislative body, not an enforcement body.
In common vernacular, people use the titles more or less interchangeably, which is okay for talking purposes. There is a need to differentiate when discussing variations on who has the power to create a "special inquisitor," and variations on their scope of authority, and variations on who has "how much" oversight. I think all of the laws include financial oversight via reporting, just to give an idea of the level of detail involved.
Thanks for the kind compliment.
You are most welcome --- I have read your comments on here and know that you have as firm a grasp as one can have in this unique situation. I truly thank you for your observations.
So, if I understand you correctly, Mueller is "limited" statutorily (and departmentally) with his investigation into "collusion with Russia" ----- BUT ----- he has, in fact, pretty wide latitude in what he chooses to go after (and recommend to a Federal Prosecutor). Is that a fair assessment?
On another note -- Do you (in your personal opinion) believe that Mueller should recuse himself over "Conflict-of-Interest", or is he okay to investigate as a G-Man?
Thanks in advance for your patience --- AND your response...
He certainly is “off the rails”. Those designer suits and hair have had there way with him, since his brief exile and quick return.
What happened? Murdoch’s are the new Sopranos.
Mueller's authority has always included the power to bring indictments, He also has a duty to report (confidential to AG) investigations that concluded "no bill," meaning evidence does not support bringing a criminal charge.
His investigation (and therefore indicting possibility) scope is limited to
investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump"
The grant language is necessarily vague because the grant is public, and the FBI (all cops) have a policy of conducting investigations in secret, so as to not harm the reputation of innocent people who come under investigation. But the "rubber meets the road" grant is well defined by the open investigations in the FBI. For all we know, there are two or four open investigations, and that's it. One for Flynn, one for Manafort are the only two that pop into my head.
I don't think Trump should make any noise that suggests any concern at all with Mueller. Let the surrogates and the press duke it out. Trump has consistently taken the position (and even Comey's testimony corroborates this) that he wants the investigation to be thorough and get to the bottom of it so it can be put to bed "properly." Trump is not trying to hide anything.
I don't see any graceful way to remove Mueller, and I suspect that Trump has been "in on the plan" to have Mueller take this job. Trump interviewed Mueller to head the FBI, a day before Rosenstein named Mueller as SC.
I agree with the other poster. You seem to understand this much better than anyone else. Appreciate your comments. This is an example of why FR is so great! I come here to learn from folks like you.
What classified info did Come leak? His personal notes apparently were not classified...
Comey admitted one contained classified content or was classified. What that one is I don’t know.
I must have missed that - as he only admitted to the one leak to his friend (to then leak to the press) - and it was simply his notes from his meeting with Trump (supposedly).
The good judge is like Ron Paul to me. I REALLY like a number of his positions, and I REALLY hate a number of his positions.
That being said, I think the judge does not like Trump and would be okay seeing him impeached.
Trump has consistently taken the position (and even Comey’s testimony corroborates this) that he wants the investigation to be thorough and get to the bottom of it so it can be put to bed “properly.” Trump is not trying to hide anything.
***********
Likely so, but the only law that really matters is Murphy’s Law (i.e., what can go wrong, will go wrong). Its very easy for things to spiral out of control in unexpected ways.
The DC Swamp is not about to let an outsider like Trump to stroll into Washington and start shaking things up. Allowing someone like him to run THEIR TOWN is a dangerous precedent that the establishment cannot and will not tolerate. The long knives are out and Mueller is the spearhead.
So would Mueller make a recommendation to the AG one way or the other?
Yes I can see the political games. In fact Trump may have leaked he was angry with Sessions as a head fake, who knows. The hearings usually produce some surprises, good, bad, or both.
The press misinterprets and stretches everything about Trump. It is gaslighting the public, full on. Any Trump frustration is taken as literally against somebody. Notice Comey "surprise" at being fired, after all, Trump had told him he wanted him to stay. I point the Comey relationship as an example of misdirection going the other way.
I speculate the recent "Comey is considering firing Mueller" stories, citing Chris Ruddy, is rooted in the likely true notion that Trump was "gaming out the consequences" of various courses of action. Consider all courses (or many) in a decision matrix, pros and cons of each course. "Fire Mueller" would be one of the possibilities, and it probably ranks dead last of all the options. That gets converted to "Trump is considering firing Mueller."
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.