U.S. Judge Questions Mueller's Powers

[churchmouse]

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.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

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.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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)?

 

[BugI02]

Since November 4, 2008

 

[Libertarian01]

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

 

[Kutnupe14]

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

He started the agency. And was it's director until he died in office, 1972.

 

[T.Lex]

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?

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.

 

[patience0830]

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.

LOL. Sarcasm noted.

 

[Fargo]

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.

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.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

 

[Fargo]

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.

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. "Arose or arise directly..." and all.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

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.

 

[Fargo]

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.

 

[T.Lex]

The charge can absolutely be brought, I'm just not certain it can be by this prosecutor. "Arose or arise directly..." and all.

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.

 

[Fargo]

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.

Sub C refers to these "matters". Sub B appears to be the "matters"" referred to. I don't see how C expands B.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

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.

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).

 

[Dead Duck]

And in the beginning he assured us that there's no conflict of interest with him or his staff.

 

[Fargo]

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).

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.

 

[T.Lex]

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.

I guess I'm confused. Is that not a rational tactic, engaged by prosecutors everywhere?

Even if there is some sort of limitation, is the Manafort case an example of it?

He's been charged with crimes involving Russian interests in the course of an investigation of Russian interests. That's not exactly a poster child for prosecutorial abuse.

 

[Fargo]

Also, I do not believe that the special counsel speaks for the DOJ as far as it goes the interpretation of its regulations so I'm not certain that there is anything Chevron related here. Plus, there does not appear to be a civil issue present here which would exclude Chevron altogether.