The justice department should have put and end to this along time ago
There is no longer and possibly never was any "Justice" in the Dept.
It is a politically driven tool.
The justice department should have put and end to this along time ago
I think the DOJ, FBI, IRS are corrupt at the highest levels and then add in the weaponization of many of the alphabet agencies. IRS, Education, SSA, etc., etc. Literally arming them, too. And they want to take away our guns. I don't think so, Tim.
Just out of curiosity, how long do you think they have been this way? Or, noting how relatively recent Hoover passed away, do you think it has always been the case (along with the other alphabet agencies)?
I don't know about the rest, but as for the FBI, when did J. Edgar Hoover take over? My history is fuzzy here.
Doug
How so? This is about Mueller's standing to bring and prosecute the charges before the court. Isn't this Law 101?
Except for the charter issued by Rosenstein, Mueller is just a private citizen. This is a basic question of standing that should be asked and answered.
Could I prosecute Hillary for her crimes before a federal court? No. I don't have standing as a prosecutor.
Could the county prosecutor bring federal charges in a federal court? No, they don't have standing in that court to prosecute those laws.
This is basic order of law stuff.
Mueller just wants to "hide" the original Rosenstein memo because it's cr@p and doesn't follow the Justice Department guidelines... which is then fodder for the "witch-hunt" charge. The DoJ isn't following it's own rules on this, which makes it political instead of plain old applying the law.
How so?
My security clearance isn't that high, so I don't know who is guilty of what. Obviously, there are plenty of INGO members, despite their distrust of govt, that have active security clearances that allow them to access to information retained by only the highest members of govt. I shall defer to their insider knowledge.
Am I incorrect that Mueller is currently the prosecutor on Manafort? There is a fundamental difference between an investigator of general powers and a special prosecutor appointed with a limited scope. Investigation isn't before the court, an indictment filed by a prosecutor is.An investigator, upon starting legitimate investigation, can continue to investigate any criminal activities that the investigation discovers.
A judicial limitation on that is legislating a limitation that isn't there.
The question is whether there's probable cause to support the charges filed. Well, there's a side question of whether the venue/jurisdiction is appropriate, I guess. But that's independent of whether the special counsel is within his power to investigate something. So, the FBI can't file a charge in Hamilton County. But, if they find evidence of a state crime and the local prosecutor files it, that doesn't change whether the investigation was within the scope.
I keep going back to Whitewater/Lewinsky.
I think you're right on all factual parts, but the "scope" issue - general power v. special prosecutor - I think is incorrect.Am I incorrect that Mueller is currently the prosecutor on Manafort? There is a fundamental difference between an investigator of general powers and a special prosecutor appointed with a limited scope. Investigation isn't before the court, an indictment filed by a prosecutor is.
There is a reason the special prosecutor legislation of the Clinton years is no longer in effect and will likely never be repeated.
I think you're right on all factual parts, but the "scope" issue - general power v. special prosecutor - I think is incorrect.
The DOJ abdicated/delegated the investigation and any corresponding charges. Since there's no controlling legislation (that I know of), Mueller can take the investigation wherever it leads.
He's alleged federal violations in federal court by power delegated from the DOJ.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
"... the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters."
That's pretty broad.
Couple things, in no particular order:Investigating the Russians has what to do with Manafort's transgressions of yore? This looks like blind witness/codef leveraging to me, way outside the scope of a special. Am I also incorrect that the unredacted special counsel authorization has never been released, hence the judge's concern?
Ken Starr might be applicable in an argument on fairness, but I believe the law is now quite different.
The charge can absolutely be brought, I'm just not certain it can be by this prosecutor. "Arose or arise directly..." and all.Couple things, in no particular order:
- The link was the product of a quick google search that does not appear to be redacted. I haven't followed it enough to know whether there's something more out there - I'm just taking the .gov link at face value.
- In terms of scope, I think we're talking around each other a bit. If an investigation of murder reveals tax fraud, the tax fraud case can be considered "arising from" the murder inquiry. Manafort's probably broken lots of laws over the years. If within the SOL, they should be prosecuted.
- Could be leveraging, which also isn't illegal. In fact, it is a solid prosecutorial tactic, with a long history. Especially at the federal level.
- Manafort worked for entities linked to the Russian-favoring Ukrainian cabals. He, more than perhaps any other, is most appropriately investigated for Russian collusion. Since he worked for the Trump campaign, that part pretty much makes sense.
Back to my point, though, for this judge to somehow dismiss the charges because of "scope" would be grafting requirements that are not present. I.e., legislating from the bench.
The charge can absolutely be brought, I'm just not certain it can be by this prosecutor. "Arose or arise directly..." and all.
Sub C refers to these "matters". Sub B appears to be the "matters"" referred to. I don't see how C expands B.See what you did there - "directly"?
From what I can tell, that isn't part of the abdication/delegation. I think we can agree that "arising from...." includes much more than "directly."
ETA for clarity:
The "arising directly" has to do with the investigation. The "arising from" deals with charges being brought.
Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but it appears that the special prosecutor believes that he can investigate/prosecute any crime if it's prosecution will force a witness or codefendant to cooperate in the Russia investigation. I do not see how this can possibly fall within the scope of his authority.Well, between b) refers to the investigation, which is itself quite broad. Even the arose or arising directly language is a loophole big enough for a monster truck. Like I said, at least with regard to Manafort, the links to Russian interests were already known, so it is an easy step to say they arose from the investigation.
More structurally, c) refers to charges. I don't see any linkage between the limitation in (b) and the ability to charge in (c). If they find evidence of a crime (broadly) arising from the matters investigated, they can charge it.
Plus, I took a quick look further down in the CFR. This is 600.6.
Emphasis added, because the "jurisdiction" part is prior to this one. So, it kinda makes it seem like the judge would either have to legislate a limitation or interpret the agency's own CFR against them (shades of Chevrons past).
I guess I'm confused. Is that not a rational tactic, engaged by prosecutors everywhere?Maybe I'm being overly simplistic, but it appears that the special prosecutor believes that he can investigate/prosecute any crime if it's prosecution will force a witness or codefendant to cooperate in the Russia investigation. I do not see how this can possibly fall within the scope of his authority.
Maybe that's not what is going on here, but color me highly skeptical.