Posted on 07/23/2017 9:31:27 AM PDT by Cboldt
Rod Rosenstein violated DoJ Regulations when he appointed a Special Counsel. Then Special Counsel Mueller overstepped his jurisdiction. Let's break that down. Here is the appointment.
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the 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; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. S: 600.4(a).
DOJ Order 3215-2017: Appointment of Special Counsel Mueller
Accompanying May 17, 2017 Press Release
Here is the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017.
I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.
Comey March 20, 2017 Testimony
28 CFR 600, the DOJ regulation covering Special Counsel, requires that the DOJ transfer a criminal investigation. Special Counsel has no place in a counterintelligence mission. Here is the opening of 28 CFR 600.1.
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 [conflict of interest plus public interest]
Substitute Comey's March 20 testimony into Order 3915-2017, and the Order opens like this:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the counterintelligence mission of investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election investigation ...
For talking purposes, overlook Rosenstein's improvident and unauthorized transfer of a counterintelligence investigation to a Special Counsel. Maybe that was the only way to dispose of the seditious bomb that Comey set.
Look at the scope of jurisdiction given to Mueller. There is more than one way to analyze the scope of Rosenstein's authorization to Mueller, both end up in the same place, that he is constrained to investigate CAMPAIGN-RELATED matters - and of course obstruction, perjury and so on if anybody tries to fool him on CAMPAIGN-RELATED inquiries.
Rosenstein can only act as AG for matters that AG Sessions has recused from. AG Sessions has only formally recused from matters relating to the Trump campaign.
Comey's March 20 testimony creates this investigative structure:
The "nature of any links between individuals and Russia" is subordinate or secondary to investigating Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Mueller and his acolytes are divorcing the predicate of campaign contact. They read the grant as authorization to investigate the "nature of any links between individuals and Russia", whether that link has anything to do with the campaign or not.
DOJ Order 3915-2017 is even more direct about the authorized scope of investigation. It speaks for itself, with one detail deserving mention.
Remove a certain phrase, and the scope of investigation becomes clear.
"any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and the campaign of President Donald Trump"
When looking at corporate crime, crimes committed by employees off the job are not assigned to the corporation. The target of Mueller's investigation is supposed to be the campaign.
The idea is simply to avoid conflict of interest, and as you know and described, that is inherent when the executive investigates himself through one of his people. We do the best we can.
Unless someone comes up with something better, I think the "best we can do" is remove the prima facia conflict of interest by having the executive branch officers investigated by appointed officers of the House.
This Trump thing also make it important IMO to clearly define the steps required to bring about valid impeachment (formal charges), or else we get prima facia conflict of interest and "guilt by accusation" as the Lying Left is trying to do here.
“To get Mueller back in the box “
This may not even be possible. Mueller is on a vendetta for firing his BFF and he probably hates Trump. But something must be done.
Didn’t know that Mueller is restricted by law from delving into Russia interference in election?
-- To get Mueller back in the box Sessions will have to reassert that he has recused only from matters relating to the Trump campaign and nothing else ... --
That's not the only way to get there, and if he does that, I think it better if Sessions does that in private, addressed to Rosenstein only. Sessions can't be seen as interfering with Mueller.
Rosenstein, on the other hand, created Mueller, has a regulatory duty to constrain Mueller's jurisdiction, and has a regulatory duty to enforce all the other DoJ regulations that Mueller might violate.
-- Your post needs to be given greater exposure and driven into discussion by the pundit class. This public exposure might force Sessions to act. --
I've seen signs of the mission creep aspect pop up, before I even composed this. The question of there be no basis in the first place, that angle has not been played, and I hope it is. It is a more difficult intellectual exercise though, compared with mission creep. The mission creep thing is "how does that relate to the campaign?" over and over and over and over, Crimson and Clover.
He has a thin slice of that. A very thin slice.
His slice is crimes committed by the Trump campaign, in cooperation "with Russia."
Scare quotes, because it is illegal for a campaign to take contributions from any foreign entity. Interestingly, it would be LEGAL for a campaign to buy campaign advertisements from a foreign entity, or even have a foreigner compose a campaign ad, for hire. IOW, they can give money to foreigners, just can't take it.
The broader question of Russians committing crimes is not a question of investigating Trump! That is investigating Russia!
“coif”
Your covfefe moment! hehehe
“Nothing will come of it”
Perhaps not, but I remain optimistic that justice will prevail in the end.
Nobody is standing between the House and senate doing whatever the heck they want to on this. They have been investigating, and Congress is one of the primary sources of accusation. See Schiff, Warner and a handful of others. They don;t have to step aside for Mueller either. They can tell him to go to hell, we have this.
What Congress can;t do is bring criminal charges. That's the line. But they can do all the investigation their little hearts desire. The regulation of that is election, fifth amendment, fourth amendment.
-- This Trump thing also make it important IMO to clearly define the steps required to bring about valid impeachment (formal charges), or else we get prima facia conflict of interest and "guilt by accusation" as the Lying Left is trying to do here. --
The lying left is able to defeat any system. it is a waste of time and effort to constrain them with statutes, regulations, and rules. They can only be defeated with ridicule. They are not reasonable, they are irrational and outcome driven.
It’s a problem when your ipad gets used to your constant use of the word coif.
Is it legal to pay a foreigner to create an advertising campaign about the opposition peeing on Russian beds?
> I don’t think there is any deadline as part of Mueller’s charter. Barring actually finding anything they want to keep dripping leaks to keep to the heat on until 2020.
That is the plan. No limit, no findings, just the pall of an investigation. Nothing but a smear machine.
> Trump and his team need to turn Mueller into a McCarthy, a Nifong. Mueller’s reputation for following the rules has to be destroyed.
That would be a useful tactic. Mueller hasn’t followed the rules.
Hey Mitch, how about you actually adopt the idea of getting stuff done, you know, like it comes out of committee, and the next day you hold a floor vote - however long it takes that day. And if stuff backs up you nuke it and pass all of the pending nominations in one resolution.
The entire intelligence community is a pack of treason...they are enemies of America, and not just a few of them as we always solomnly claim.
Coup
> “how does that relate to the campaign?” over and over and over and over
Yes. We’ll have to create a list of memes and hashtags and “tweet” en masse.
Looks like I’ll have to sign up to the twitter-borg.
These oh-so-clean social leaders are the most dishonorable scum the earth can produce.
all the while keeping the focus off the real russian crimes of the hildabeast & podesta gang
ROTFL. Other than the risk of a defmation lawsuit, sure. I will say, creating the ad isn;t the problem in that case. Publishing it is the event the creates a risk of civil liability.
There is absolutely no risk of criminal liability for it though.
Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. --U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3, Cl. 7.OK, so for reasonable suspicion of an executive branch officer and to avoid prima facia conflict of interest, the House, not the DOJ, should investigate to see if there is probable cause for the House to impeach (bring charges).
If impeached, the Senate tries the case as they do any impeachment case.
If convicted, the officer is subject to the judgment of removal and DQ - nothing further. As you say, Congress cannot bring criminal charges against a federal officer
However, after conviction (removal not explicitly necessary), the federal officer may be subject to criminal liability under federal courts probably by the DOJ regardless of what branch he's from because at this point he's been convicted by Congress and the DOJ is the only valid prosecutor in federal court.
If the Senate convicts an impeached officer, the minimum penalty is removal from office. DQ is optional. Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed as a federal judge. Now he's a Congressman, because Congress did not impose a DQ penalty.
Criminal prosecution is discretionary on the part of the prosecutor (note: not on the part of the FBI!), for everybody. Hastings was tried for the crime, criminally, before he was impeached. Ion other words, the fact that he held office did not prevent him from being charged, criminally, and being subjected to a criminal trial.
The president holds a unique position - there is only one. Hence the academic interest in whether he can be indicted while in office, or if that has to wait until after he is out of office, by hook or by passage of time.
Impeachment doesn't have any conflict of interest consideration. Impeachment is deliberately a biased, partisan activity. Whatever justification is brought up, is done to convince the people that the target is a skunk and ought to be removed from office for that. Removed for misdemeanors. The target of impeachment always tries to turn it into a legal standard, find the statute, etc., but if enough members of Congress want to impeach and remove somebody for bad breath, there is no recourse. As noted, the throttle on this power is accountability to the electorate, plus limited penalty.
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.