The President Trump Immigration Thread

[SheepDog4Life]

You're going to have to be WAY more specific.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about.


"Am I being detained?"

T. I interpreted Leadeye's question as where is the line between "breaking the law" and "finding holes in the law to avoid cooperating" with the Feds?

IANAL, but I see state/city sanctuary policies and laws as problematic in our federal/state system in several ways:

1. It's been well-established that immigration policy is SOLELY a federal power. So, just like Arizona's laws and Arpaio's policies, that would render California's laws/policies null as being unconstitutional... I.e. specifically outside of their powers.

2. Federal law establishes that state and local officials may not bar their law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. State laws that require non-cooperation are illegal in our system. They are similar to the Arizona/Arpaio situation, in that they do not possess that power, but IMO are worse, since they are in direct conflict with federal law, they violate it, rather than seeking to enforce it as in the Arizona/Arpaio case.

3. At some point, such efforts cross the line from "not cooperating" to actively "aiding and abetting" federal fugitives (let's focus on those that have arrests/convictions rather than those "merely" illegally present) in avoiding apprehension and capture by federal authorities. Once they get into the later territory, those who do so, and those who conspire to do so, are clearly committing a federal felony crime that has stiff prison sentence penalties.

So, whether they've crossed that line into criminal acts is a question for our justice system... right?

 

[T.Lex]

T. I interpreted Leadeye's question as where is the line between "breaking the law" and "finding holes in the law to avoid cooperating" with the Feds?

IANAL, but I see state/city sanctuary policies and laws as problematic in our federal/state system in several ways:

1. It's been well-established that immigration policy is SOLELY a federal power. So, just like Arizona's laws and Arpaio's policies, that would render California's laws/policies null as being unconstitutional... I.e. specifically outside of their powers.

2. Federal law establishes that state and local officials may not bar their law enforcement from cooperating with ICE. State laws that require non-cooperation are illegal in our system. They are similar to the Arizona/Arpaio situation, in that they do not possess that power, but IMO are worse, since they are in direct conflict with federal law, they violate it, rather than seeking to enforce it as in the Arizona/Arpaio case.

3. At some point, such efforts cross the line from "not cooperating" to actively "aiding and abetting" federal fugitives (let's focus on those that have arrests/convictions rather than those "merely" illegally present) in avoiding apprehension and capture by federal authorities. Once they get into the later territory, those who do so, and those who conspire to do so, are clearly committing a federal felony crime that has stiff prison sentence penalties.

So, whether they've crossed that line into criminal acts is a question for our justice system... right?

In this situation, a precedent like that puts our democracy in jeopardy. Seriously. Not hyperbolizing. This would be on par with Lincoln's unconstitutional actions.

Immigration is a federal issue. If the feds want to enforce it, they should do so with federal powers. They ought not co-opt or mandate local cooperation. That has federalism issues.

The question of sanctuary cities is a political one. Local politicians have been elected to selectively enforce laws they disagree with. The feds arresting those elected leaders is problematic.

Let's say the DOJ civil rights department determines that Vanderburgh county doesn't have enough black cops. That the sheriff is intentionally not hiring black cops contrary to civil rights laws. With this logic in place, they could arrest him. Heck, that might even be an easier case to make.

According to the article - and we don't REALLY know how this will play out - the local officials are not being criminally investigated for actively thwarting federal actions. Rather, it is for not cooperating. For civil disobedience in a political question.

That kind of position is so easily twisted to work against us that it is appalling to me. Like I said, even the threat of this pisses me off.

And, for the record, I think "sanctuary cities" is a terrible policy. Like, no redeeming qualities at all.

 

[Leadeye]

That helps clear it up.

I usually have to pay lawyers for interpretation so I'll consider this a bonus.

 

[Leadeye]

Is the executive branch capable of stopping grant money to these cities? I would think this would probably be enough as I can't imagine a major city having to live solely off it's tax base.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

In this situation, a precedent like that puts our democracy in jeopardy. Seriously. Not hyperbolizing. This would be on par with Lincoln's unconstitutional actions.

IF (and I say if because it is in question; DHS has asked DOJ to determine IF federal law is being broken) state and local politicians are violating federal laws for which there are sanctions, fines and jail terms... then, IMO, it would be a crisis for our form of government to NOT pursue the charges. In this case, the DHS has simply asked if laws are being broken.

Immigration is a federal issue. If the feds want to enforce it, they should do so with federal powers. They ought not co-opt or mandate local cooperation. That has federalism issues.

This is not that... California law now MANDATES non-cooperation. THAT is a violation of federal law, i forget the code section, but they are barred by law from doing so. Also, going further, parts of the California law (and city policies) might mandate actions that are aiding and abetting a federal fugitive. There is a line, the question is has that line been crossed. That is a job for the DoJ to determine, and if necessary, the courts.

The question of sanctuary cities is a political one. Local politicians have been elected to selectively enforce laws they disagree with. The feds arresting those elected leaders is problematic.

If they've crossed over into VIOLATING federal law, then this is no longer selective non-enforcement. Whatever penalties the law contains would apply.

Let's say the DOJ civil rights department determines that Vanderburgh county doesn't have enough black cops. That the sheriff is intentionally not hiring black cops contrary to civil rights laws. With this logic in place, they could arrest him. Heck, that might even be an easier case to make.

Isn't that exactly what happened to the cops that beat Rodney King? Acquitted locally but convicted federally for civil rights violations? It's been around for decades, nothing new.

According to the article - and we don't REALLY know how this will play out - the local officials are not being criminally investigated for actively thwarting federal actions. Rather, it is for not cooperating. For civil disobedience in a political question.

Asking the DoJ to determine if federal law has been broken that calls for prosecution mean the opposite of what you say, IMO. Non-cooperation is one thing. Mandated non-cooperation on immigration is another thing, violates federal law (though I'm not sure it's criminal) and unconstitutional to boot. Actively aiding and abetting federal fugitives is yet further on the scale and, if that's what they are doing, likely crosses the line into criminality.

Have they? That's the question for the DoJ to answer yay or nay.

That kind of position is so easily twisted to work against us that it is appalling to me. Like I said, even the threat of this pisses me off.

I think far worse is to pursue criminal charges for an elected official exercising powers that they explicitly have... think Texas Governor Perry funding veto... President Trump firing an at will political appointee (Comey). I'm no believer in unilateral disarmament, it never works. So this works in a "tit-for-tat" model, but I don't know that it even has to go there. It might be just plain ol' criminally illegal.

And, for the record, I think "sanctuary cities" is a terrible policy. Like, no redeeming qualities at all.

I agree... but I also think that criminality (or not) should be independent of the politics. It's either criminally illegal or it's not. If it is, then charges could be filed, and i think should. If it's not, then they shouldn't, even if I don't particularly like what they are doing.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Is the executive branch capable of stopping grant money to these cities? I would think this would probably be enough as I can't imagine a major city having to live solely off it's tax base.

The federal government cannot use funding as a "stick" to beat the states into submission. However, they can provide "carrots" that provide additional funding if the state/locality does the things the grant is for. If the sanctuary policy violates that, then the grants can be cut off.

The key case was when congress sought to cut off highway funds for states that didn't adopt the "federal speed limit". The courts found that the funds were to build highways, NOT to enforce speed limits, so the "string" congress attempted to attach to the funds was unconstitutional.

So, in this case, cutting off grants for bullet-proof vests would fail muster. However, cutting off grants to defray costs of cooperating with the feds, holding federal prisoners, participating in federal enforcement programs, etc would be fair game. Grants for generic "put more cops on the streets" would likely be off limits if there is no specifications of complying with federal laws.

 

[T.Lex]

Is the executive branch capable of stopping grant money to these cities? I would think this would probably be enough as I can't imagine a major city having to live solely off it's tax base.

Generally, yes. The executive branch grant-makers can use that as leverage. I'm all for that. Partly because that whole scheme is an abdication of congressional responsibility and the more it can get mucked up, the better.

IF (and I say if because it is in question; DHS has asked DOJ to determine IF federal law is being broken) state and local politicians are violating federal laws for which there are sanctions, fines and jail terms... then, IMO, it would be a crisis for our form of government to NOT pursue the charges. In this case, the DHS has simply asked if laws are being broken.

Which is very near to investigating gun owners to check if laws are being broken.

Or police agencies with few minorities if civil rights laws are being broken.

Or abortion providers to check if informed consent is being given in every case.

This is not that... California law now MANDATES non-cooperation. THAT is a violation of federal law, i forget the code section, but they are barred by law from doing so. Also, going further, parts of the California law (and city policies) might mandate actions that are aiding and abetting a federal fugitive. There is a line, the question is has that line been crossed. That is a job for the DoJ to determine, and if necessary, the courts.

A few technical points.

Illegal immigrants are not "federal fugitives" unless there is a warrant for them.

Yeah, I'll need some references for a federal law making it illegal for states to pass a law mandating non-cooperation with federal authorities. There is a serious constitutional issue going both ways on this. States ought not interfere with federal enforcement of federal law. (Having a law and acting on it are 2 different things.) Feds ought not demand work from state and local authorities to enforce federal laws.

Federalism works both ways.

If they've crossed over into VIOLATING federal law, then this is no longer selective non-enforcement. Whatever penalties the law contains would apply.

Assuming constitutionality.

Isn't that exactly what happened to the cops that beat Rodney King? Acquitted locally but convicted federally for civil rights violations? It's been around for decades, nothing new.

Again - they beat the guy. Federalism. There was a constitutional law. They broke it.

Asking the DoJ to determine if federal law has been broken that calls for prosecution mean the opposite of what you say, IMO. Non-cooperation is one thing. Mandated non-cooperation on immigration is another thing, violates federal law (though I'm not sure it's criminal) and unconstitutional to boot. Actively aiding and abetting federal fugitives is yet further on the scale and, if that's what they are doing, likely crosses the line into criminality.

Have they? That's the question for the DoJ to answer yay or nay.

Remember these rhetorical points when the tables are turned on an issue you feel like defending.

I think far worse is to pursue criminal charges for an elected official exercising powers that they explicitly have... think Texas Governor Perry funding veto... President Trump firing an at will political appointee (Comey). I'm no believer in unilateral disarmament, it never works. So this works in a "tit-for-tat" model, but I don't know that it even has to go there. It might be just plain ol' criminally illegal.

I agree... but I also think that criminality (or not) should be independent of the politics. It's either criminally illegal or it's not. If it is, then charges could be filed, and i think should. If it's not, then they shouldn't, even if I don't particularly like what they are doing.

Would you agree that the federal government criminalizing certain political positions is a bad idea?

 

[T.Lex]

Sorry to follow up my own post (still trying to get to 50 quality ones), but I think the IRS v. conservative causes is an informative analogy. If there's nothing wrong with investigations of possible wrongdoing, it shouldn't matter what the targets are.

 

[2A_Tom]

Sorry to follow up my own post (still trying to get to 50 quality ones), but I think the IRS v. conservative causes is an informative analogy. If there's nothing wrong with investigations of possible wrongdoing, it shouldn't matter what the targets are.

Yeah that is a good example.

Obama never ordered the the IRS to surreptitiously investigate conservative organizations and block their exempt status.

Trump openly orders DOJ to Investigate whether non cooperation laws violate federal law.

 

[indiucky]

 

[2A_Tom]

Boy, I am ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, and I have to dis agree with Dr Peterson (who I believe to be brilliant).

That would imply that we have nothing to gain from LIMITED immigration by those with non western experience.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Generally, yes. The executive branch grant-makers can use that as leverage. I'm all for that. Partly because that whole scheme is an abdication of congressional responsibility and the more it can get mucked up, the better.


Which is very near to investigating gun owners to check if laws are being broken.

I'll speak to this one because the other two have been, and continue to be litigated in the courts. I WOULD WELCOME the Indiana AG weighing in on this. I believe he would find, and publicize, that open carry in Indiana is legal and an individual "merely" openly carrying DOES NOT provide the necessary reasonable suspicion of a crime for a Terry Stop. If he/she somehow found the opposite, that would give the NRA-ILA the opportunity to take the AG to court.

As it is now, any random jack-wad cop can decide he has the authority to do so... and it would be up to the harassed individual to make a court case out of it.

Or police agencies with few minorities if civil rights laws are being broken.

Ok, I lied, I will address this one... this one has been fought many, many, many times, and I don't think the "statistical standard" has won out as the de facto standard. And, where it did, for a time, turned into unconstitutional quotas... which IMO is where statistical standards inevitably lead... it's definitional.

It's still a matter of whether the entrance exam is pertinent and fair. Many departments have lower entrance requirements for minorities to increase diversity, and those have strict limitations by SCOTUS to AVOID quotas which are unconstitutional.

Or abortion providers to check if informed consent is being given in every case.


A few technical points.

Illegal immigrants are not "federal fugitives" unless there is a warrant for them.

I think you missed the part where I said to omit the "merely illegally present" from this discussion. Those that are wanted for arrest, have prior convictions and/or deportation orders have "wants and warrants" against them and are fugitives from federal law enforcement.

Yeah, I'll need some references for a federal law making it illegal for states to pass a law mandating non-cooperation with federal authorities. There is a serious constitutional issue going both ways on this. States ought not interfere with federal enforcement of federal law. (Having a law and acting on it are 2 different things.) Feds ought not demand work from state and local authorities to enforce federal laws.

Federalism works both ways.

8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

Not that it matters, legally, but the notes indicate that this was passed as law on Sept. 30, 1996: Dem House, Rep Senate and signed by Pres Bill Clinton.

Assuming constitutionality.


Again - they beat the guy. Federalism. There was a constitutional law. They broke it.

Which, to both points, was determined in court. Asking the DoJ to look at this is a step PRIOR to courts.

Remember these rhetorical points when the tables are turned on an issue you feel like defending.

I've no problem with that... criminal laws have predicates. If you can cite the law broken and the facts that support the predicates, then it's a court case. Otherwise, it's a sham, regardless of whose ox is being gored. When political regimes dictate that what appears to be clearly criminal violations are not investigated nor put to a grand jury in order to retain power, while some amorphous "thing" allows a proctological investigation your political enemies in order to regain power, yeah, tyranny and all that is undemocratic.

Would you agree that the federal government criminalizing certain political positions is a bad idea?

Yup... and I've seen it unilaterally applied multiple times by Democrats.

Sorry to follow up my own post (still trying to get to 50 quality ones), but I think the IRS v. conservative causes is an informative analogy. If there's nothing wrong with investigations of possible wrongdoing, it shouldn't matter what the targets are.

As I recall, IRS Division Chief Lois Lerner pled the 5th rather than answer questions before Congress. Surely you aren't implying the having the DoJ look at sanctuary actions to determine when they cross the line into criminally actionable activities is itself illegal, are you?

I'm confident that US AG Sessions would answer any and all questions asked by congress about the law on this.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Nope. Create a scoring system based on what individuals seeking to immigrate here would ADD to our country to make it better. Allow in based upon high scores.

Have a relatively few slots reserved for refugees who can find refuge no where else.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll speak to this one because the other two have been, and continue to be litigated in the courts. I WOULD WELCOME the Indiana AG weighing in on this. I believe he would find, and publicize, that open carry in Indiana is legal and an individual "merely" openly carrying DOES NOT provide the necessary reasonable suspicion of a crime for a Terry Stop.

I think you misunderstood. You are using one example of what a gun owner might do that might be considered illegal.

My point was that if "investigations are not a problem" then any gun owner can be investigated any time to make sure they are only doing legal things. Barrel too short with a stock, etc.

Investigations commonly find "wrongdoing" unrelated to the original charge.

Ok, I lied, I will address this one... this one has been fought many, many, many times, and I don't think the "statistical standard" has won out as the de facto standard. And, where it did, for a time, turned into unconstitutional quotas... which IMO is where statistical standards inevitably lead... it's definitional.

Again, it isn't a question of how we measure any specific action is illegal. It is the power to investigate and arrest for political positions.

I think you missed the part where I said to omit the "merely illegally present" from this discussion.

Well, I ignored it because that does not appear to be a limitation on DHS.

8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

I don't think what you quote means what you think it means.

There would be a conflict between that law and whatever non-cooperation law is passed. That does not make it a criminal act to either decline to send information, or decline to act on information sent by, INS.

At least, that law doesn't make it a crime. I am interested if there is such a law.

Which, to both points, was determined in court. Asking the DoJ to look at this is a step PRIOR to courts.

But the officers were not in trouble for taking a position contrary to the federal gov't. They were in trouble for kicking a guy's ass.

I've no problem with that... criminal laws have predicates. If you can cite the law broken and the facts that support the predicates, then it's a court case. Otherwise, it's a sham, regardless of whose ox is being gored. When political regimes dictate that what appears to be clearly criminal violations are not investigated nor put to a grand jury in order to retain power, while some amorphous "thing" allows a proctological investigation your political enemies in order to regain power, yeah, tyranny and all that is undemocratic.

Now we're cooking. And indeed, DHS appears to be asking DOJ for a determination as to what laws are being broken.

Ideally, they'll say, "None that we could find." And it ends there.

Yet, I suspect that won't be the answer. Rather, they will find something (they always do). And there will be investigations, lawyers paid, and chilling of rights. All in the name of popular support.

Yup... and I've seen it unilaterally applied multiple times by Democrats.

Really?

Against elected officials?

Are we talking about the southern politicians who defended segregation? Give me an example of what you're thinking of.

As I recall, IRS Division Chief Lois Lerner pled the 5th rather than answer questions before Congress. Surely you aren't implying the having the DoJ look at sanctuary actions to determine when they cross the line into criminally actionable activities is itself illegal, are you?

I don't even understand the question.

I'm saying that if people were upset by IRS investigations of potential breaches of the tax exempt status, then they should be upset by this, too. Both appear motivated by politics rather than crime fighting.

I'm confident that US AG Sessions would answer any and all questions asked by congress about the law on this.

My fear is that he would be sanctified for admitting that he is launching the full force of the federal government to fight this political battle.

 

[2A_Tom]

.

 

[indiucky]

Boy, I am ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, and I have to dis agree with Dr Peterson (who I believe to be brilliant).

That would imply that we have nothing to gain from LIMITED immigration by those with non western experience.

I read it that he agrees they should have western values...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I think you misunderstood. You are using one example of what a gun owner might do that might be considered illegal.

My point was that if "investigations are not a problem" then any gun owner can be investigated any time to make sure they are only doing legal things. Barrel too short with a stock, etc.

Investigations commonly find "wrongdoing" unrelated to the original charge.


Again, it isn't a question of how we measure any specific action is illegal. It is the power to investigate and arrest for political positions.


Well, I ignored it because that does not appear to be a limitation on DHS.


I don't think what you quote means what you think it means.

There would be a conflict between that law and whatever non-cooperation law is passed. That does not make it a criminal act to either decline to send information, or decline to act on information sent by, INS.

At least, that law doesn't make it a crime. I am interested if there is such a law.


But the officers were not in trouble for taking a position contrary to the federal gov't. They were in trouble for kicking a guy's ass.


Now we're cooking. And indeed, DHS appears to be asking DOJ for a determination as to what laws are being broken.

Ideally, they'll say, "None that we could find." And it ends there.

Yet, I suspect that won't be the answer. Rather, they will find something (they always do). And there will be investigations, lawyers paid, and chilling of rights. All in the name of popular support.


Really?

Against elected officials?

Are we talking about the southern politicians who defended segregation? Give me an example of what you're thinking of.



I don't even understand the question.

I'm saying that if people were upset by IRS investigations of potential breaches of the tax exempt status, then they should be upset by this, too. Both appear motivated by politics rather than crime fighting.



My fear is that he would be sanctified for admitting that he is launching the full force of the federal government to fight this political battle.

I think you are far afield and battling strawmen. Here is the pertinent quote from the DHS official (there are other quotes from politicians):

The Department of Homeland Security has asked federal prosecutors to examine the possibility of bringing criminal charges against leaders of so-called sanctuary cities, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told lawmakers Tuesday.


"The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available," Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee. The secretary added that sanctuary policies were "putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk."

To me that asks the question, "are they breaking laws for which prosecution is possible." 180 degrees from the Democrat's investigate until you find something on someone.

And, your other strawman is that the illegals in question are only "merely illegally present". The fact that this is all about illegal immigrants BEING RELEASED FROM JAILS/PRISON obviates that... you're arguing up the wrong tree.

So, I see this broken down into three "pieces":

1. Local officials not cooperating - They don't have to and the feds cannot force them to. If cooperation with federal law enforcement is written into any grant money, that can be halted.

2. California law SB 54 forbidding cooperation - This is both a violation of federal law THOUGH NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE, and more importantly, unconstitutional immigration policy. Should be taken to court and invalidated just like Arizona and Arpaio were.

3. If specific actions by specific individuals constitute actively and purposefully aiding and abetting federal fugitives to elude apprehennsion, then the existing CRIMINAL LAWS on the books should be used to prosecute those individuals. This is distinctly different than simple non-cooperation. If state/local officials violate FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, then they are criminals and should be prosecuted.

#3 is what prosecutors are SUPPOSED to do... determine what actions break the laws and act accordingly. And, if the actions do not break the law, then do nothing.

This is decidedly NOT what brought SP Mueller into existence... he's on a fishing trip in the middle of a witch hunt with no defined crime that he is "investigating".

 

[2A_Tom]

Investigate until you find something. Isn't that what Mueller's job is?

 

[jamil]

Boy, I am ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, and I have to dis agree with Dr Peterson (who I believe to be brilliant).

That would imply that we have nothing to gain from LIMITED immigration by those with non western experience.

He’s not making a value judgement. He’s making an observation.

 

[T.Lex]

I think you are far afield and battling strawmen. Here is the pertinent quote from the DHS official (there are other quotes from politicians):

And other quotes from other federal officials.

“We gotta take [sanctuary cities] to court, and we gotta start charging some of these politicians with crimes," Homan [ICE director] said during an interview with Fox News’s Neil Cavuto. He said politicians who pushed sanctuary city legislation should be held "personally accountable” for their actions.

That's pretty far afield from what you're saying they're saying.

And, for myopic zeal, check out:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ing-arresting-sanctuary-city-politicians.html

To me that asks the question, "are they breaking laws for which prosecution is possible." 180 degrees from the Democrat's investigate until you find something on someone.

Can you provide an example of what you mean? I'm not trying to be dense, I just can't think of a "Dem" trick that hasn't also been used by Republicans.

The fact that this is all about illegal immigrants BEING RELEASED FROM JAILS/PRISON obviates that... you're arguing up the wrong tree.

You're artificially narrowing the scope, which is at least deceptive.

Sanctuary cities, as I understand them, are for any illegal immigrants. Yes, criminal illegal immigrants are a subset, but not the whole.

The rhetoric is to go after sanctuary cities, and the politicians who support them, for the policy as to the entire group. Not the subset.

So, I see this broken down into three "pieces":

1. Local officials not cooperating - They don't have to and the feds cannot force them to. If cooperation with federal law enforcement is written into any grant money, that can be halted.

I'm ok with that.

2. California law SB 54 forbidding cooperation - This is both a violation of federal law THOUGH NOT THE CRIMINAL CODE, and more importantly, unconstitutional immigration policy. Should be taken to court and invalidated just like Arizona and Arpaio were.

I'm not familiar with the Cali law, and not interested enough at this point to do my own research. Probably is unconstitutional/unenforceable. But not criminal. I don't know off the top of my head what Arpaio was taken to court for. Again, not that interested.

3. If specific actions by specific individuals constitute actively and purposefully aiding and abetting federal fugitives to elude apprehennsion, then the existing CRIMINAL LAWS on the books should be used to prosecute those individuals. This is distinctly different than simple non-cooperation. If state/local officials violate FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS, then they are criminals and should be prosecuted.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about with this one.

Except, the requested DHS/DOJ assessment does not appear limited to that. They say "for not cooperating."

This is decidedly NOT what brought SP Mueller into existence... he's on a fishing trip in the middle of a witch hunt with no defined crime that he is "investigating".

Well, at least there, the Logan Act would provide the legal justification. As bad as that may be from a policy perspective, at least it is something.

The Clinton (Bill) investigation was for perjury... yet went into SO much more.