Devin Nunes: AG Jeff Sessions should be held in contempt of Congress

a reply to: luthier

Truth is the man has flopped 85 percent of his cabinet.

Do tell us how that connects to the original thread?

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: luthier

Truth is the man has flopped 85 percent of his cabinet.

Do tell us how that connects to the original thread?

Sure I don't think it takes a genius to know he picked Wray, Sessions, and Ronstein.

Seeker1963 wrote: "…Mueller is best buds and mentor to Comey! I am not a lawyer, but that fact alone is enough to know that Mueller has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself."

I see bogus arguments just like this all over the right wing blogosphere and all they do is show that the people who make these claims have absolutely no clue as to what "conflict of interest" actually is. I'm not a lawyer either, but I worked for the federal government for 35 years as a doctorate level Aerospace Engineer and we would get ethics training that covers these kinds of situations multiple times per year. It's fairly simple, really. Everyone who is a government employee or acting as an agent on behalf of the government (as Mueller is) is expected to honestly and faithfully execute the tasks that are a legitimate part of the job they are employed to do. You actually take an oath of office to that effect when you sign on.

Now, it sometimes happens that some interest or other of your private life could plausibly give rise to a situation in your work environment that might interfere with your interest in performing your official tasks. For example, in my job I would sometimes be asked to be an unbiased technical judge of competing proposals from, let's say, Lockheed, Boeing, and Northrop. In a case like that, you are not supposed to have any pre-existing preferences for one proposer over another. If it turned out that you owned a huge amount of stock in Lockheed or your spouse was an executive vice president of Northrop then an outside observer could reasonably argue that your personal interest (money, or love) would conflict with your official interest (rendering an unbiased judgment). That would be a conflict of interest. Some interest in your private life is motivating you to do something in your government job that you would not otherwise do.

Now let's consider Special Counsel Mueller's case. What has he been hired to do? (This is the part that most right wing bloggers get wrong). Mueller has been hired to build the best legal case he can against the Trump campaign in general (which may or may not include Trump, personally) for any criminal charges that might arise out of the Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election AND to build the best case he can against Trump personally for obstruction of justice. Mueller is not hired to be neutral in this matter. By the time the acting Attorney General decided to appoint a Special Counsel, he had already determined that he had enough cause to warrant an investigation with the intent of bringing charges, if the facts support that conclusion. And keep in mind that most likely not all the facts that Rosenstein had access to in making that decision have been made public, yet. I presume that the criteria for starting an investigation possibly leading to prosecution are spelled out in the U. S. Attorneys Manual (USAM) and I presume that Rod Rosenstein followed the manual.

So let's consider three different cases. Case 1 is that Mueller has a personal interest in seeing Trump prosecuted for some reason. Maybe he just doesn't like Trump as a person, or maybe he's ticked off because Trump fired his bud, Jim Comey. Could that kind of personal interest interfere with his job of building a case against Trump? No, not by any stretch of the imagination. If anything, his personal interest would align with his professional interest, not conflict with it. Case 2 is that Mueller is emotionally neutral regarding Trump, doesn't care one way or another. Does that create a personal interest that would conflict with his professional interest in building a case against Trump? Nope; by definition, in that case he would have no personal interest to conflict with. Case 3 is that Mueller is personally sympathetic to Trump for some reason and would really like to see him exonerated. Maybe it's because they are both Republicans or share the same political views or whatever. Could that shared interest potentially interfere with his interest in building a case against Trump? Well, yes it could; at least that's how it's been interpreted in the past. In the Nixon Watergate scandal, for example it was seen as important that the Special Prosecutor be someone from the opposite party. That's why Archibald Cox, a prominent Democrat who had been John Kennedy's Solicitor General was given the job of Special Prosecutor. Similarly, during Clinton's impeachment investigation, it was seen as important that a Republican be given the job. The job went to Ken Starr, who had been Solicitor General under George H.W. Bush. If we were following historical precedent, one could argue that the job that Mueller was hired to do maybe should have been given to someone like Eric Holder, for example. The fact that there was no strong argument like this from the Democrats is testament to the fact that Mueller is widely perceived as having enough character and professionalism to not let any sympathies he might have for Trump-as a fellow Republican-to interfere with his job of building a case against him.
a reply to: seeker1963

It's one thing after another. What happened to those memos that were supposed to be the nail in the coffin for one side or the other? Oh yeah, they came and went without much impact on anything.

Sound familiar? It should because that's what it has been for the past year +, "bombshell" after "bombshell" with not much of anything happening, only more "bombshells" that continuously keep people chasing the carrot at the end of the stick.

How many "bombshells" have you dropped on ATS over the past nearly two years OP? When will you realize that you're just a sensationalist that has no real bombshells at all and are just pushing BS propaganda? Maybe you already realize it though.

a reply to: xuenchen

More examples of Democrats wasting tax dollars on their witch hunts,the Democrats are hell bent on destruction of the US as we know it

a reply to: 1947boomer

That's a long post, so it's clear you have considered a lot - except that the SC was an illegal undertaking in the fist place, so conflicts of interest are really a secondary issue. If you are going to consider many aspects, you need to look at more angles.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The 2 top officials at the FBI were removed. One has been referred for criminal charges

Several agents have been demoted or removed


And now a judge is questioning the legality of what Mueller is doing.


Its not really bombshells. But it kinda is.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The bombshells will occur when it's shown it's more than political.

For instance when the judge throws out the case and not just asks for the mandate. For all we know he is the conservative version of these liberal grandstanding judges.

Are they bombshells when liberal judges throw out trumps policy like immigration laws? Not really..

The bombshell to me is when you look at say Devin Nunes voting record or his comprehension of the papers he demands.

Or the fact they leak right after he is given them.

All the other stuff is total speculation.

In reality Mueller is kepping his cards as close as possible while he builds a case. It's unknown what he has. Prosecutors are given insane ability by scotus, to lie, threaten, and make deals to get witness testimony.


I keep hoping this will shine a light on policy. But it doesn't appear to.

It appears to just allow partisan turf defending.

a reply to: UKTruth

Please explain how the special counsel was an illegal undertaking. I'm just dying to hear this one. Lol

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The 2 top officials at the FBI were removed. One has been referred for criminal charges

Several agents have been demoted or removed


And now a judge is questioning the legality of what Mueller is doing.


Its not really bombshells. But it kinda is.

And congress is considering contempt and impeachment of another one.

Trump only fired Comey.

The rest was done from within.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That judge has a habit of rattling the feds at trial . Putting them in their place but ultimatly siding with them anyway because his opinion and the law are separate issues.
Today pnrobably. Tomorrow at the latest. He will render this dicision. If we could bet on it that would be great but I guess faux pinky bets are ok.

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

There was no crime to have a SC.

What crime was committed?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What? No they're not. Three have written a letter they won't even sign their name to. That's a stupid go nowhere threat because they'll NEVER get the votes on the floor. You must have seen Rosensteins response if you own a tv. The DOJ will not be coerced or extorted by threats and he would not disclose any information from an ongoing federal investigation.
Nunes is setting up another conflict he won't be able to manage. These overtures are go nowhere.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

That's not answering the question I asked and is just wasting my time. Stop.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

What? No they're not. Three have written a letter they won't even sign their name to. That's a stupid go nowhere threat because they'll NEVER get the votes on the floor. You must have seen Rosensteins response if you own a tv. The DOJ will not be coerced or extorted by threats and he would not disclose any information from an ongoing federal investigation.
Nunes is setting up another conflict he won't be able to manage. These overtures are go nowhere.

He's going down. Like the arrogant asshole he is.

They must comply, Congress is their boss.

That's why he will be impeached.

Nunes is head of the intelligence committee.

They have the security clearance to see anything.

No reason to redact anything they ask for, either.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burgerbuddy

That's not answering the question I asked and is just wasting my time. Stop.

I know you don't watch or research anything or even read posts answering your own.

You waste your own time in these threads.

It's there to learn about your own question.

a reply to: 1947boomer

Yes we all understand how well the "ethics" training program works.

I want a refund !!

🤦👋

Remember this
www.wired.com...

HOLDER HELD IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, WHICH MEANS ALMOST NOTHING

......There's also a history (perhaps unsuspectingly) of not following through with prosecution when administration officials are held in contempt. In 2008, a Democratic Congress held White House Counsel Harriet Myers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten in contempt for failing to turn over documents related to the dismissal of federal prosecutors. Neither Miers or Bolten were charged by the Bush administration's Justice Department. The last time an administration official was prosecuted for contempt, EPA official Rita Lavelle, was in 1983.....

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

AND

(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;

AND

(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.

a reply to: Sillyolme

It's simple Constitutional protections. You can't investigate someone to find evidence of a crime. A crime must have taken place and you investigate that crime.