originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth
Please explain how the special counsel was an illegal undertaking. I'm just dying to hear this one. Lol
You might be dying to hear it.... at least I hope you REALLY want to hear it. It's an open and shut case with no room for doubt.
According to 28 CFR 600.1 the grounds for appointing a Special Counsel are:
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
(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;
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
Easy to read for anyone.
Now here is what Rod Rosenstein actually said when he launched the SC.
“In my capacity as acting attorney general I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a special
counsel to assume responsibility for this matter,’’ Rosenstein said in a statement. “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been
committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique
circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from
the normal chain of command.”
It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.
So, without any doubt at all, the Special Counsel at the start was an illegal investigation. It really doesn't matter what they find, it will be
thrown out of any court. Of course Dems already know that, all they have in mind is to create the optics that help them in the mid terms.
I think you are consistently misunderstanding the meaning of Rosenstein's statements that you keep quoting.
The first threshold that must be reached to appoint an SC is the finding that a person or matter "WARRANTS" criminal INVESTIGATION. From my reading
of Part 600, and a cursory reading of the US Attorney's Manual, the standard for determining that an INVESTIGATION of some matter or some individual
is WARRANTED is "probable cause" that a crime has been committed and one or more suspects identified. Making the determination that a crime has
definitely been committed and that PROSECUTION is warranted is a separate decision that can only be made after the investigation turns up evidence (or
fails to). Rosenstein was simply saying that based on the knowledge he had in May of 2017 he had reached the threshold to start an investigation but
did not know how it would end. It is possible (but improbable) that the investigation could result in a decision NOT to criminally prosecute anyone.
This is just another way of stating the principle that anyone who was a subject of the investigation is innocent until proven guilty.
Another threshold that must be reached to appoint an SC is the finding that "investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States
Attorney's Office …would present a conflict of interest for the Department…".
As far as I know,none of the SC team have publicly stated exactly why the Mueller investigation would represent a "conflict of interest for the
Department". I'm surprised that no one has brought this up and questioned it. Here is my story of what's behind this. It includes some conjecture on
my part, so if you don't like it, feel free to ignore it.
In all the reading that I've done on the history of special prosecutors and special counsels, there is debate about exactly when a particular
investigation would rise to the level of presenting "a conflict of interest for the Department". However, there is no debate that whenever the person
being investigated is either the POTUS or the AG then an SC is mandatory. Otherwise, you would have an investigator investigating the two people
directly above him in the chain of command, who could potentially interfere with their own investigations.
Prior to the appointment of the SC, Comey told Trump on several occasions that he (Trump) was not the named subject of a criminal investigation. One
of those times was just a few days before he was fired. Comey's statements were true in part because the investigation into Russian meddling in the
election that Comey started back in the Fall of 2016 was a Counter Intelligence Corp (CIC) case, not a criminal case.
I think that immediately after Comey's firing Rosenstein determined that a criminal investigation of Trump for obstruction of justice was warranted
based on (1) the private meeting between Trump and Comey in which Trump asked Comey for loyalty, (2) another private meeting in which Trump asked
Comey to go easy on Flynn, (3) the meetings between Trump and Rosenstein in which he asked Rosenstein to gin up a list of excuses for firing Comey,
(4) the actual firing of Comey, and (5) the subsequent announcement by Trump to the Russians in the oval office that Comey's firing was done to take
the pressure off himself (and had nothing to do with the list that Rosenstein had written). There is almost certainly additional information based on
classified sources that we don't know about yet. These 5+ actions don't prove obstruction of justice, but they certainly present a consistent prima
facie case for investigating it. As soon as Trump became the subject of a criminal obstruction of justice case, it was practically mandatory that an
SC be appointed so that Trump could not interfere in the investigation of himself.
Beyond that, I suspect that when he bragged to the Russians in the oval office about having taken the heat off himself by firing Comey, Trump himself
made the connection between the firing of Comey and his desire to impede the CIC case. At that point a possible obstruction of justice case and a
possible conspiracy case became linked into what has been described as a "classic public corruption case". Since Trump was at that point implicated
in both matters it became necessary to put both matters under a single SC.
In the lengthy exchanges between Mueller's prosecutor, Michael Dreeben and Judge Ellis last week in the Eastern Virginia District Court case against
Paul Manafort, Dreeben revealed that the letter establishing the SC investigation published in May 2017 by Rosenstein is not the entirety of the basis
for the investigation. He stated that there are one or more classified documents that lay out the entire case for why the investigation is structured
the way it is. Judge Ellis demanded to see those classified documents in a couple of weeks. I suspect that when he does, Trump will be mentioned by