Andy McCarthy Asks A Simple Question...

[jaF0]

It was an investigation looking for a crime. Like Andy said, this isn't how we do things in the United States of America.

Yes. It is. Allegation/accusation/suspicion >> Investigation >> Decision to charge or not.

 

[jaF0]

Unless you're a Brutha in Da Hood.

Then it's Execution >> 'investigation' (aka circling the wagons) >> discussions of how to defend the officer >> charges against the dead victim and family.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes. It is. Allegation/accusation/suspicion >> Investigation >> Decision to charge or not.

No it isn't.

DOJ rules require the Attorney General to specify a statute violation for the SP to investigate. No such statute has been specified by Rod Rosenstein in his charge to Mueller.

 

[Comshaw]

I'm saying the time periods are not correct. It says Iran-Contra lasted about eight years, which, given the original date, would mean it extended into the Clinton administration. It says Whitewater, which was actually several inquiries, lasted into W's administration.

Some of the time frames are probably correct, but others are not even close.

ETA: Here are some more, including a few that were omitted. Some of them were quite brief:https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/////////shows/counsel/office/chart.html

Here's another that bears out my first cite. As you can see Whitewater lasted 7 1/2 years and Iran Contra 6 1/2. All of these were measured from the appointment of special council to the final report. Many times the last few years of the investigations were without any indictments because nothing new was found toward the end of the investigations. None the less they went on for the period of time used to measure all of them: from appointment of council to final report.

You can doubt all you want, you can believe any thing you want but every cite I've been able to find supports the first one I posted. Facts are facts and faith is faith. One's concrete, the other ethereal I prefer to stand with concrete facts until proven otherwise, as do most reasonable people. Please take note of the sources used to produce the chart listed at the bottom of the page.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/atd-indictments-0514.png?w=1150

The difference is, all of those were legitimately undertaken with specified statute violations of law to be investigated. The Mueller investigation was initiated in violation of DOJ rules without specifying any particular statute violation. It was an investigation looking for a crime. Like Andy said, this isn't how we do things in the United States of America.

No it isn't.

DOJ rules require the Attorney General to specify a statute violation for the SP to investigate. No such statute has been specified by Rod Rosenstein in his charge to Mueller.

And again you are wrong. For the umpteenth time here is the charging letter:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Comshaw

 

[Rightguide]

And again you are wrong. For the umpteenth time here is the charging letter:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download

Comshaw

That letter only references statutes and regulations defining the authority of Attorney General and DOJ regs defining the powers of the SP. Again, it does not specify a criminal statute allegedly violated by the targets of the investigation, as required by DOJ regulations. If it did do you really think the former federal prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh would author an article asking for the crime in question?

Again I quote from McCarthy's open letter:

To my mind, he has owed us an answer from the beginning, meaning when he appointed Special Counsel Robert Mueller on May 17, 2017. The regulations under which he made the appointment require (a) a factual basis for believing that a federal crime worthy of investigation or prosecution has been committed; (b) a conflict of interest so significant that the Justice Department is unable to investigate this suspected crime in the normal course; and (c) an articulation of the factual basis for the criminal investigation — i.e., the investigation of specified federal crimes — which shapes the boundaries of the special counsel’s jurisdiction.

This last provision is designed to prevent a special counsel’s investigation from becoming a fishing expedition — or what President Trump calls a “witch hunt,” what DAG Rosenstein more diplomatically disclaims as an “unguided missile,” and what Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz, invoking Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s secret-police chief, pans as the warped dictum, “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” In our country, the crime triggers the assignment of a prosecutor, not the other way around.

 

[cowslinger64]

No it isn't.

DOJ rules require the Attorney General to specify a statute violation for the SP to investigate. No such statute has been specified by Rod Rosenstein in his charge to Mueller.

You're big on the constitution.. here ya go!

http://time.com/5304214/mueller-probe-constitutional/


President Trump Is Wrong. The Mueller Probe Is Constitutional

By NEAL KATYAL June 7, 2018
IDEAS
Katyal is the Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of National Security Law at Georgetown University Law Center and a partner at Hogan Lovells. He previously served as Acting Solicitor General of the United State


President Trump declared on June 4 that the “appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!” Like many of Trump’s utterances, it was made with all the deliberation of a tweet. But unlike some of his targets, which are susceptible to a dashed-off gurgitation, this is an intricate constitutional issue worthy of sober reflection. Happily, there is a clear answer: virtually no one believes the appointment of the special counsel is unconstitutional, and there has been a long-standing bipartisan consensus to the contrary.

A little background: After Watergate, Congress passed the Independent Counsel Act, which created a supercharged independent prosecutor who acted in many ways outside of the Justice Department and with little oversight. That act empowered Lawrence Walsh to investigate Iran-contra and Kenneth Starr to investigate Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. Notably, a near unanimous Supreme Court upheld the legality of such a prosecutor in 1988 in Morrison v. Olson. Only Justice Antonin Scalia dissented.



Snip:

After extensive consultations within the Justice Department and, on a bipartisan basis, with Congress, we wrote the special counsel regulations. Robert Mueller was appointed under those regulations.

 

[Que]

^^^Doesn't know that there is no longer any such statutory authority on the books.

 

[cowslinger64]

^^^Doesn't know that there is no longer any such statutory authority on the books.

This appears in the June 18, 2018 issue of TIME.


Sure about that?


Besides, if you had bothered to read the article, or what I posted, it points out that Mueller was appointed under those regulations.


So, if in the last 3 months this was changed... I'd be happy to take a look at it, your snark notwithstanding.

 

[cowslinger64]

Don't leave me hangin!!!!

 

[Oblimo]

DOJ rules require the Attorney General to specify a statute violation for the SP to investigate. No such statute has been specified by Rod Rosenstein in his charge to Mueller.

Would you provide a link to those regulations, please? I am having trouble finding them - which is not the same thing as saying they don’t exist.

 

[cowslinger64]

^^^Doesn't know that there is no longer any such statutory authority on the books.

Come on query... illuminate me with your massive intellect as well as your copy/paste skills!!!

 

[Rightguide]

Would you provide a link to those regulations, please? I am having trouble finding them - which is not the same thing as saying they don’t exist.

You should have read the article I posted. There is a link provided in red:

28 CFR 600.4 - Jurisdiction.
eCFR
Authorities (U.S. Code)

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

 

[cowslinger64]

You should have read the article I posted. There is a link provided in red:

[.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4


(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

 

[Oblimo]

The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to you be investigated.

Yeah, and the authorization letter does exactly that. Read it again.

I was asking you for the regulations that state, as you claim, that the authorization needs to cite specific statutory violations.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, and the authorization letter does exactly that. Read it again.

I was asking you for the regulations that state, as you claim, that the authorization needs to cite specific statutory violations.

No it doesn't It does not direct him to investigate a given statute violation. That is the point of the article.

There's a reason why it doesn't specify a specific criminal violation by the President or his campaign. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know why.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah, and the authorization letter does exactly that. Read it again.

I was asking you for the regulations that state, as you claim, that the authorization needs to cite specific statutory violations.

Do you understand what this means to lawyers:

"The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

 

[cowslinger64]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/600.4


(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

Do you understand what this means to lawyers:

"The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

Well??? Got nothin?

 

[Oblimo]

Do you understand what this means to lawyers:

"The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated."

*Snerk*

Why yes, yes I do, oddly enough.

Furthermore, although the regulations require the Attorney General to provide a Special Counsel with a factual statement of the matters to be investigated, notably missing from the regulation is any requirement that the Attorney General specify any particular crime or statutes that are believed to have been violated.

Guess where that quote’s from, Mr. Paper Chase.

C’mon, guess! I’ll give you one guess.

 

[Oblimo]

No it doesn't It does not direct him to investigate a given statute violation. That is the point of the article.

Then the article is wrong on its face.

There's a reason why it doesn't specify a specific criminal violation by the President or his campaign.

The reason being, it’s not required by the regulation. A specific factual statement is required, instead.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know why.

Imagine that.

 

[Oblimo]

Did...did I shut Rightguide up? Did I win an internet fight?

http://media.collegetimes.com/uploads/2013/10/fight.gif

 

[Rightguide]

The reason being, it’s not required by the regulation. A specific factual statement is required, instead.



.

No dunce that isn't why. It's because the whole thing started out as a counter intelligence investigation which is not a criminal investigation. They don't get referred for prosecution. They are handled by a completely different branch of the DOJ. That's where they go to die. The question is when did this become a criminal investigation? Did Rosentstein issue a classified instruction to Mueller. Judge Ellis asked the same thing and demanded to see such instructions.

Do you know who the author of that article is?

 

[Oblimo]

No dunce that isn't why. It's because the whole thing started out as a counter intelligence investigation which is not a criminal investigation. They don't get referred for prosecution. They are handled by a completely different branch of the DOJ. That's where they go to die. The question is when did this become a criminal investigation? Did Rosentstein issue a classified instruction to Mueller. Judge Ellis asked the same thing and demanded to see such instructions.

Do you know who the author of that article is?

Stick to the subject. Which you brought up, mind you. Was that the charging letter failed to follow DOJ regulations by not specify which criminal statute violations to investigate.

I asked you to point to which regulations you meant, and you showed me some regulations that are famous for not requiring statutes to be specified. Even provided you a quote from United States v. Manafort on the subject.

I’d like to finish our initial discussion, if you please. You’ve so far failed to answer my question, so I will ask you again:

Would you provide a link to those regulations, please? I am having trouble finding them - which is not the same thing as saying they don’t exist.

 

[Rightguide]

Stick to the subject. Which you brought up, mind you. Was that the charging letter failed to follow DOJ regulations by not specify which criminal statute violations to investigate.

I asked you to point to which regulations you meant, and you showed me some regulations that are famous for not requiring statutes to be specified. Even provided you a quote from United States v. Manafort on the subject.

I’d like to finish our initial discussion, if you please. You’ve so far failed to answer my question, so I will ask you again:

Would you provide a link to those regulations, please? I am having trouble finding them - which is not the same thing as saying they don’t exist.

These are the regulations pertaining to the Special counsel:

§ 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
§ 600.2 Alternatives available to the Attorney General.
§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.
§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.
§ 600.5 Staff.
§ 600.6 Powers and authority.
§ 600.7 Conduct and accountability.
§ 600.8 Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.
§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.
§ 600.10 No creation of rights.

If you go here, they are listed as blue links and can be accessed with a mouse click:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600:

 

[OldJourno]

Mueller has been a little busy lately. I'm sure he'll get around to it soon.

So tell me, how do you keep an idiot in suspense?

You hang him in a basket and name him after a character in a popular film trilogy.

 

[IG_88]

Brilliant legal minds at work again.