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

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

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.

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 name.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: yuppa

The Russians asked for every instance the US has interfered in elections as part of their defense.

Hahahahahaha! When do the Israelis fire up a Special Counsel to charge Obama for conspiring against the Israeli people when he interfered in the Israeli elections.

Or how about when Bwak! threatened the UK citizens with economic punishment if they went against His Holiness and voted for Brexit.

Wouldn't it be just fantastic if because of the actions of the traitorous scum in government that country's who have had American interference in their elections were able to turn around and sue and/or prosecute the scum American politicians behind those illegal actions.

a reply to: Carcharadon

They will never comply.

Interesting analysis/observations...

a reply to: Carcharadon

Were those actions covert? Or were they public?

a reply to: shooterbrody

No its not what the church told people.
Rolls eyes.
Can't you just ignore me?

Please?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Deven Nunes isn't a judge. ( as if)

a reply to: 1947boomer

They are not misunderstanding anything..


They willfully twist people’s words to match the fictional narrative they want..


You will get nowhere attempting to make logical rebuttals with some..

It is not that they think trump is innocent.. they just don’t care.. to them the left equals anyone left of Sean Hannity and is all a bunch of Satan worshipping, elite pedo ring running socialists intentionally trying to destroy America..


There is no greater evil if you believe in fairy tales..

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Deven Nunes isn't a judge. ( as if)

Apparently not even a good lawyer. He is so busy raising money for re election he doesn't have time to read the 1.5 page documents he grand stands over. Then Pawns them off on Gowdy. Who I guess is a real lawyer and understands law.

Ironically also trusts Mueller.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04



www.nytimes.com...

It's on that page.

a reply to: xuenchen

Different case foxy.

a reply to: luthier

Nunes isn't a lawyer. He's a farm boy.

a reply to: xuenchen


Sessions says that what the House Intelligence Committee is asking for, "Is not grantable".

What doe that mean?

a reply to: carewemust

It means that he's explained it directly to Nunes and will discuss it further but he cannot talk about it in public.

White House backs Sessions as some House Republicans push to hold him in contempt

"The Department of Justice has written him a letter and responded as appropriate to him. The request he's made is one that the intelligence communities and Department of Justice feels is not grantable," Sessions said. "We have explained that we would like -- we would be willing to talk to him about it before, the details of which I couldn't discuss."

www.kitv.com...

a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the entire statement. I just saw a quick snippet of what Sessions said on the news. Will be interesting to see where this goes from here.

As Q states, Jeff Sessions is in control, and working with President Trump. That is why the White House today said that Devin Nunes/HIC will do what he has to do, but the President supports Jeff Sessions's decisions.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

No its not what the church told people.
Rolls eyes.
Can't you just ignore me?

Please?

Top of your class my arse
That was EXACTLY how the Roman catholic church maintained control
You discouraging people from doing reasearch is a riot
You are afraid of what they will find when Mika doesn't tell them what to think

a reply to: carewemust

It means that never in history has the fbi given Congress all their evidence for a still active investigation..

It has been a staple of the separation of powers forever...

a reply to: luthier

Everyone not as conservative as Sean Hannity is considered a liberal in right wing world.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: carewemust

It means that never in history has the fbi given Congress all their evidence for a still active investigation..

It has been a staple of the separation of powers forever...

Late Development:

Apparently Jeff Sessions has something important to share with Devin Nunes, in person. They will meet...and talk.

www.newsmax.com...