Pages

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Why the left has the Mueller investigation wrong...

So you keep hearing from so many sources that Robert Mueller has almost unlimited powers to investigate pretty much anything and everything associated with Trump, members of the Trump campaign, members of the Trump transition team, members of Trump's family, as well as pretty much anyone who ever has known Donald Trump.

If you were to listen only to these voices, you might start to believe that this is not really an investigation into Russian meddling at all. It's an open ended investigation into Donald Trump himself.

This argument was recently raised by Bob Dreyfuss from the Rolling Stone magazine.
From the start, Mueller had a broad mandate – and it isn't limited to the question of Russia. The statement appointing Mueller authorized him to investigate "any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Trump," along with "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," plus "any other matters within the scope" of the law. That statement also gave Mueller the job of looking into efforts by Trump or others to impede or block the inquiry.
Any other matters within the scope of the law? Really? Mr Dreyfuss provides the link to Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller which includes the following:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including: 
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
  • Part (i) is fairly clear. It allows Mueller to look for collusion between Trump and whichever Russians were meddling in the election. 
  • Part (ii) would provide Mueller with the means to charge people with perjury, obstruction, or matter that arise "directly from the investigation". 
  • Part (iii) is not actually "any matters within the scope of the law" as suggested. Rather it includes any matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)  - which is the law that defines the parameters of a special counsel.  

Mr Dreyfuss obviously doesn't take the time to see exactly what 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) even entails. I find this lack of curiosity from most of your liberals absolutely astounding. It took me about thirty seconds to copy the legal jargon, and look it up on the internet. I will highlight the relevant portions of this law that apparently the left either isn't smart enough to find, isn't honest enough to acknowledge, or is purposely ignoring for reasons completely unknown.
28 C.F.R. § 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.
As you can see... it does indeed authorize Mueller to investigate other issues outside of his original jurisdiction, but only if those are concluded to be necessary to fully resolve the issue at hand, or if he could justifiably claim that they came to light specifically from relevant investigations. Moreover, if Mueller does come up with something that would be considered necessary to complete his investigation or otherwise outside the scope,  then Mueller is required to go back to Rosenstein (as Rosenstein suggested) to make a determination if those additional matter should be included, or assigned elsewhere.

This means, legally speaking, that if Mueller has not gone back to Mueller and asked to expand his investigation into areas that have nothing to do with the 2016 investigation (even if Mueller feels those issues are necessary to resolve the issue) - and he is (as rumored) investigating Trump business dealings that have nothing to do with the 2016 election meddling, then he would be legally working outside of his scope.

It's technically true that Mueller could simply go rogue and do exactly that. Perhaps under the concept that if he were to find something, that Rosenstein would have no choice but to authorize the expansion (after the fact).  But that would be an obvious flaunting of the law. It's hard to say what Rosenstein would do at that point. Unless Mueller could justify his actions within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) - it's possible that Mueller himself could be held liable for breaking 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) and working outside of his jurisdiction. Firing may not be the only consequence to that action.

But for those on the left who assume that Mueller's power to investigate is basically unlimited, that assumption cannot be logically tied to his appointment letter or tied to the law overseeing special counsels. The only plausible explanation for this belief (other than bona-fide ignorance) would be the assumption that Robert Mueller has no intentions of following the laws that govern his special counsel appointment. That would be a truly scary assumption to make, and even scarier that some apparently would wish for it.

51 comments:

Roger Amick said...

As you can see... it does indeed authorize Mueller to investigate other issues outside of his original jurisdiction, but only if those are concluded to be necessary to fully resolve the issue at hand, or if he could justifiably claim that they came to light specifically from relevant investigations. Moreover, if Mueller does come up with something that would be considered necessary to complete his investigation or otherwise outside the scope, then Mueller is required to go back to Rosenstein (as Rosenstein suggested) to make a determination if those additional matter should be included, or assigned elsewhere.

You say that he has to go back to Rosenstein. He is not in the justice department. He's a professor, so Mueller doesn't have to go back to him. Where did you find that as a requirement?



This means, legally speaking, that if Mueller has not gone back to Mueller???? and asked to expand his investigation into areas that have nothing to do with the 2016 investigation (even if Mueller feels those issues are necessary to resolve the issue) - and he is (as rumored) investigating Trump business dealings that have nothing to do with the 2016 election meddling, then he would be legally working outside of his scope.

You claim that he has no jurisdiction outside of the room of the 2016 election meddling, and you think that Mueller is legally outside of the scope but. That does not seem to be what the other people been saying other lawyers and other people citing the possibility that things happen outside of the scope of that's 2016 election are part of what can be investigated. The reason is why they are going to subpoena the tax returns of Donald Trump for at least three years or possibly five years ago. They want to see what's going on personally, possibly because of his connections to the Russians before this even started. And those connections may have influenced his decisions or even lead them to collude with the Russians, because they possibly got millions or billions of dollars of business. We don't know that but we sure as hell have the right to find out how don't we?

Roger Amick said...

28 C.F.R. § 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.

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.

You assume the new owner has not gone back to the Attorney General to determine additional matters within the special counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

In reverse you're making the same kind of assumptions that you're blaming the left being misunderstanding and rather stupid. But you're doing it right back the other way my friend and you better think about that. Because if he asked for the Attorney General for additional scope which we may not know about it blows, your complete argument into shreds, every bit of it

If you have not gone back to the Attorney General for additional scope you might have a point, but you have no information of any kind saying if he has or has not done that.

Like I said I want to go back and see you other things that happened in the past, that may have influenced Trump during his campaign to make decisions or use the Russian information to influence the voters. That is a legitimate part of this investigation whether you like it or not. At least according to everything your paperwork says, "if the Attorney General authorized it."

Roger Amick said...

There are grammatical errors when time it said owner, not Mueller
If he had not gone back to the Attorney General would be the proper language. Microphone errors

Hell no, we do not know if he went back to the Attorney General or not.

Roger Amick said...

I should use the computer instead of the Kindle. I can type 50 words a minute or more.

I learned to type in ninth grade on the old-fashioned typewriters, reach over and slam it over and start again.

Came in handy for years later when I got a chance to work in the office.

Roger Amick said...

I have to make a prediction.

"Fire and Fury" Will be responsible and justified. CH

And by the way since that time everything he has done today is tweet attacks on the fake media and attack those polls are incorrect. And that they did not go after Bill Clinton for meeting with the Attorney General.

He threatens nuclear war. Tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet thank you Mr. President

I remember the Cuban missile crisis. Ellsworth Air Force Base is right outside of Rapid City South Dakota . It was worth B-52's were sent to the redline and to bomb Russia if there was no withdrawal . There are also many many ICBM launchers in the area . We would have been turned into radioactive dust . Donald Trump keeps up his way, since I live near Los Angeles he could be repeating the damn thing only he would end up getting us all killed because he busy tweeting.

caliphate4vr said...

He threatens nuclear war.

He's threaten nuclear war???

Not Yong Un???

Damn

C.H. Truth said...

Roger - what the hell do you mean that Rosenstein is a professor? Rod Rosenstein is the D.A.G. who assigned Mueller as Special Counsel. Under the law, Mueller has to go back to Rosenstein to expand the scope of the investigation.

It really doesn't matter what anyone else actually "tells you" Roger. You can read the god damned law yourself.

Or are you so damned stupid that you cannot read for yourself, and actually "require" someone else to "tell you" what to think?

Read the letter. Read the associated law. For once in your life, take the initiative to research something yourself, rather than always relying on others to think for you.

pathetic.


And no, nobody knows for sure if Mueller has already gone to Rosenstein and asked to expand it. But again (if you had been paying attention) - Over the weekend Rosenstein implied (and all but stated) that Mueller has not expanded the investigation and that the rumors that have been coming out regarding the investigation have been often quite false.

But it's really irrelevant to the argument being make by this Rolling Stone author and others... that Mueller has authority to do whatever he wants without supervision. They are simply wrong. Period.

Roger Amick said...

I failed to confirm how Rosenstein was. The Deputy Attorney General but that doesn't matter.

But the rest of it stands because if he had permission from the Attorney General he could run a deeper investigation. You are assuming he does not have permission.

You do not know if he has it or not but you continue to say I'm stupid. you don't know, do you?

I read the law carefully. I don't know if you did because it says without a doubt that he can get permission from the Attorney General . That's what it says I can copy and paste it if you want the damn information but is there.

Rosenstein, Yes or no.

Roger Amick said...

(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.

You obviously did not read the law carefully enough to understand that he can expand his investigation after he gets permission from the Attorney General or possibly in this case the Assistant Attorney General.

So again I'm standing by what I said. Your conclusion is incorrect. You came to a conclusion, that was contrary to the written law . I can read Mr. CH . Not only that I can comprehend it. Sometimes I'm wondering if you can anymore with your Trumpism at stage four.

Roger Amick said...

I did not consult or read anything else, this is my conclusion. I don't need to go somewhere else actually have a operating brain. Sometimes I wonder about yours anymore because of the Trump crap.

I did not read the Rolling Stone stone and I didn't need to do that. I read what you said and I drew my conclusions from what you said.

Roger Amick said...

Over the weekend Rosenstein implied (and all but stated) that Mueller has not expanded the investigation and that the rumors that have been coming out regarding the investigation have been often quite false.

Oh really let's see it.

A lot of the stuff coming out of the right side is just as full of fabrications. Unless you believe that Sean Hannity never never ever ever exaggerated the truth.

#falseheartedtruth

caliphate4vr said...

Paris attack: Police hunt BMW driver who mowed down six French soldiers

I'm betting the driver's name isn't Jacque

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

The fact that Mueller not only needs permission to expand his investigation, but needs to show cause to do so..

IS MY WHOLE POINT!!!!

and it is "also" 180 degrees from what the Rolling Stone author and others are arguing.

Your elevator is truly not going to the top floor anymore, Roger.

C.H. Truth said...

I did not read the Rolling Stone stone and I didn't need to do that.


You did not read what this guy stated.
You did not read the law in question.

But you can somehow wander to the site (obviously mentally "under the weather" for whatever reasons) and demand that not only is Rod Rosenstein a professor, but that I am clearly wrong about the points I make.

When you admit that you had not researched "anything to do with what I wrote".


You know what, Roger. It would appear that you simply argue with me across the board on everything as a matter of knee jerk reaction. You've already determined every post is wrong... you just haven't decided exactly "why" yet.

Because you are impulsive and incapable of not making emotionally driven decisions you feel the need to weigh in with whatever garbled crap you come up with. Then you work backwards... and try to piece together a justification for an argument you did not research AT ALL prior to making it.

opie said...

A subject more to my liking and subject to science rather than opinions of authors....like CH and google idiots...

“A lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax,” said Mr. Trump, then a Republican primary candidate. “I mean, it’s a moneymaking industry, O.K.? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.”

Since taking office, Mr. Trump and his advisers have argued that the global fight against climate change is a threat to the American economy. In his speech withdrawing from the Paris accord, the president said the agreement imposes “draconian financial and economic burdens” that are “unfair, at the highest level, to the United States.”

Trumps position on GW....a hoax.

Loretta said...

"Then you work backwards... and try to piece together a justification for an argument you did not research AT ALL prior to making it."

CH has the patience of Job.

KD, Work the new COOL Four Letter Word said...

CH has the patience of Job. " Ette

Yes, time and again he has gone out of his way to educate and inform the Three liberal Stooges of CHT, for his kindness they name call , throw up , defecate and defile his blog.

IS the "alky side" of this blog still up?

US Economy is humming along very nicely, I see a few pro-Trump Manufacturing Stories on PBS and one on NBC, hard to ignore the Trump Bump when a million plus people are getting out of the electronic soup kitchen line and into jobs, with earned paychecks.

I notice too a fantastic Report on the drop in Disabled Americans that all of a sudden became disabled and could not work during the Obama Lost Years, but now, have had a come to Jesus Moment and Can WORK, leaving SS disability for work and a real contributing pay check.

The swing of a few thousand off of SS Disability back to work can make a $100,000,000 dollar difference to those people and the system. Making both financially stronger.

Roger Amick said...

Nice try.
I proved that your logic wss flawed. So all you have left, is accusing me of mental illness. You have lost your credibility as an analyst, because you are one of the approximately 35% of registered voters, who still believes that President Donald J. Trump has credibility.

Your mental disability is denial. I'm not in denial, nor was my post an emotional attack. I saw that your "logic" was an emotional attack on the "left", and in particular, one magazine that has little or no influence on the political dialogue in the country.

You assume that Mueller has not gotten permission to widen the investigation, because you are pathologically driven to defend the President against anything, no matter how irresponsible and worse, a pathological liar, who may well be the first leader to use nuclear weapons since August of 1945.

Get help my friend.

wphamilton said...

"Additional matters" within the jurisdiction traditionally do NOT include the various related matters that Special Prosecutors turn their attention to. If that's where the investigation leads, and it has a material impact, that's where they go.

I understand that we'd like to interpret that 28 C.F.R. § 600.4 Jurisdiction statute to narrowly exclude anything that might threaten our favored politician, as long as we deem it "additional", but that's just wishful thinking.

Loretta said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger Amick said...

I very carefully read the law that you posted so you are incorrect in your
logic again. Your addiction to Donald J Trump is pathetic. I am frightened over man because he can make us the first nation to use nuclear weapons since 1945. And you would support it. Because he can do no wrong in your mind. But I don't hate him I reserve that for even worse as if there are many worse there are. I fear him because of his inability to understand Foreign Affairs history or anything else like that because even refuses to read the memos they provide to him and he sits in front of the television and writes twit tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet tweet against his perceived enemies. And you think this is a good President. your logic is completely flawed from first letter on your post.

Roger Amick said...

I agree 100% with wp. Protecting his favorite politician is driving every post in the last few months.

Roger Amick said...

I hope that this is true.

Tillerson has sought to allay fears of a military confrontation with North Korea after President Donald Trump warned he could unleash "fire and fury" on the pariah state.

Tillerson defended Trump's comments but said there was no sign that the threat level from North Korea had changed and that Americans should "sleep well at night."
CNN FAKE NEWS

Beyond this argument the Congress must act and keep the president from firing nuclear weapons is that simple. Like I said I predict that our host will support the fire and fury comments. He hasn't commented yet but he will. I would say he's pathological but I don't like to make accusations like that because any more than him I'm not qualified to make that kind of judgment. A guy with a degree in economics is not qualified to make mental illness judgements at all. He sure likes to think that way. Just like he wants to defend the present under all circumstances as our friend WP noted.

Roger Amick said...

I will say one more thing before I get up and do some things around the house. Have they said it and see any of this stupid alky comments.

Fighting an addiction and winning one day at a time it is not an easy task. I admit being addicted to alcohol and I'm working every day one day at a time to get remain sober.

If our host requested but those post go away I want to thank him for that.

Roger Amick said...

I should edit better. I am glad to see that the alchy comments are not appearing anymore. That's the correction in my first sentence above.

Loretta said...

Don't worry about it drunkard.

Loretta said...

It was deleted by the author, me, drunkard.

The DLCC said...

Phil Miller was declared the WINNER of his special election for Iowa House!

This victory means Democrats won by ten points in a district that favored Donald Trump by more than 20 points last fall!

A win in territory this red is a massive, stunning rebuke of Trump and his state-level allies. It's clear that our fellow Americans are FED UP with Trump’s incompetent, corrupt, far-right administration, and Democrats are FIRED UP to take him on.

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...


Let's see Democrats and Independents make up 11,995 registered voters versus 6,611 Republicans in this Iowa district, though Republicans do own a slight edge over Democrats. Less than 700 votes was the final difference.

This vote was to replace a Democratic who won the district in 2016 despite Trumps large victory.

BIG NOTHINGBURGER.

ROFLMFAO !!!




Roger Amick said...

I feel sorry for your Mrs. Alzheimer.

OPIE said...


The Obama and "US Economy is humming along very nicely"


hard to ignore the Trump Bump when a million plus people are getting out of the electronic soup kitchen line and into jobs, with earned paychecks.

Or the 11.4 million that found work under obama...

C.H. Truth said...

I understand that we'd like to interpret that 28 C.F.R. § 600.4 Jurisdiction statute to narrowly exclude anything that might threaten our favored politician, as long as we deem it "additional", but that's just wishful thinking.

WP... this has nothing to do with what I would like or not like to see.

This has to do with whether or not the argument that Mueller can just decide (on his own) to investigate whatever it is that he wants is accurate.

28 C.F.R. § 600.4 clearly states that in order to expand the scope of the investigation, he needs to go back to Rosenstein.

C.H. Truth said...

Your mental disability is denial. I'm not in denial, nor was my post an emotional attack. I saw that your "logic" was an emotional attack on the "left", and in particular, one magazine that has little or no influence on the political dialogue in the country.

Like most things you write these days... this makes no senses what-so-ever.

This is really simple Roger.

- A guy wrote an article making a claim
- That claim was bolstered by a misrepresentation of a document
- I posted the actual text of the document (showing that it was misrepresented by the author
- I then posted what the actual text referred to.


There was absolutely nothing about that post that was not entirely based on the documents and the facts. My argument had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Trump.

This argument was very very specific, Roger. It (as many of my posts are these days) designed 100% to show that many members of the media are simply lying through their teeth... as this guy was.

He misrepresented a statement, didn't follow through on the research.
I provided the "full statement" - then provided the research.

You personally attack my argument without even understanding it, and assume (WRONGLY) that it simply must have something to do with Trump.


REALITY!!! Trump's approval could be zero percent, Roger.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS OF HOW THIS INVESTIGATION IS LEGALLY SET UP!

The fact that you simply cannot make "ANY" Argument anymore without referring to Trump, Trump approval, or your hatred of Trump...is bordering on a psychotic break with reality.


KD, Bipolar Alky , Jane and The Dopie said...

When Trump WON, I knew it was going to be good, but, never did I think it was going to be this good this fast.


"US Economy is humming along very nicely, I see a few pro-Trump Manufacturing Stories on PBS and one on NBC, hard to ignore the Trump Bump when a million plus people are getting out of the electronic soup kitchen line and into jobs, with earned paychecks.

The only problem the left has with my posts are that they are fact based and they point to how the Lost Years are being erased.

Those Millions coming off the Electronic soup kitchen lines and off of SS Disablity where put there by Your President. NOT YOUR PRESIDENT is winning them paychecks and economic freedom.

Kansas and MO Farmers are going to be putting a lot of grain in to bins this fall, we ranchers are going to market heavier Steers and fancy replacement heifers, your welcome.

KD, contrasting Economy of 2016 December and latest facts on the Trump Bump said...

Bye-Bye: U.S. Job Seekers Giving Up, Leaving the Workforce"

December 2016,,, As more job seekers throw in the towel, the unemployment rate fell to 4.6% from 4.9% in November. On the surface, a lower rate looks positive, but it may be masking problems in the economy"
"More Americans are kissing the workforce goodbye – not because they’re financially secure but because they can’t find a job. A record 95 million people are sitting on the sidelines opting not to work. As a result, the labor participation rate is stuck at 62.7%, a 40-year low."



Yet, the latest job numbers in July 2017 show a complete reversal of the above facts.

Loretta said...

No pedophilia to swoon over yet today Pastor James Boswell?

Roger Amick said...

I declared that your post was inaccurate and illogical. Your assumptions and claims that Mueller was acting outside of the scope of the invention were and are illogical and inaccurate. I clearly showed that your post was inaccurate.

You didn't mention the President, but it was still a defense of him. Your claim that Mueller was acting outside the scope, because it might hurt Trump was the bottom line.

Roger Amick said...

Scope of the investigation. Correction.

Roger Amick said...

This argument was very very specific, Roger. It (as many of my posts are these days) designed 100% to show that many members of the media are simply lying through their teeth... as this guy was.

My argument was that your argument was just as illogical and inaccurate as the Rolling Stone writer, or worse. And I made my point. I read your quote. So you are acting obsessive, not me.

C.H. Truth said...

I declared that your post was inaccurate and illogical. Your assumptions and claims that Mueller was acting outside of the scope of the invention were and are illogical and inaccurate. I clearly showed that your post was inaccurate.

Obviously Roger... you simply don't understand the post.

I make absolutely no argument as to whether or not Mueller is or is not "currently" outside the scope of his investigation. So you cannot logically show me to be wrong or inaccurate about a point I haven't argued.

This just shows your obvious lack of reading comprehension.

In fact, I have argued (more than once) that I believe that Mueller is likely still focusing on Russian collusion, and the possible ties. Rosenstein himself strongly downplayed rumors that Mueller has drifted off course.

My post (if you go back and actually read it) - is about what authority Mueller actually has. It's a rebuttal of the argument by people like this Dreyfuss character who argues that this particular Special Counsel appointment has unlimited scope (based entirely on him truncating a statement from Rosenstein's letter).

Dreyfuss is wrong. You have not disputed this by any reasonable person's standard. You have not even tried...

Why?

Because you too busy are off in your own little world disputing something I didn't claim.


wphamilton said...

"28 C.F.R. § 600.4 clearly states that in order to expand the scope of the investigation, he needs to go back to Rosenstein."

History and precedent clearly show that Meuller can investigate whatever he deems material to his mandate. You are still making an assumption about what "additional matters" means in the statute, and your assumption is at odds with actual practice.

Roger Amick said...

First I read your quote out of Rolling Stone I should have read the whole thing because you've been known to be very specific in your quoting without being fully inclusive.

No, you don't quite understand. I thought they were much more correct than you were and your logic was flawed completely.

I told you and maybe you couldn't understand what I said. That is entirely possible even though you would never ever admit it.

But then of course you resort to insulting, something you say is not supposed to be done here, and claim that I'm demented.

Mueller has not expanded beyond his original jurisdiction. If he had done that without permission he could have actually been terminated because he had actually violated his directions his orders. If that was true Trump could actually fire the guy because he'd have a good reason to do so but right now according to your logic he could but you can't because he has not gone beyond his limits. And you don't want to accept that why I don't know. I have some barbecue to do today my friend so I'm going to not worry about this too much besides my Angels won a game today finally again but they're playing a lot better than the twins hehehehehe. Adios amigo para rrb.

Roger Amick said...

wp and I are fairly close. CH seems to claim that Mueller went beyond his jurisdiction. Read what are what WP said. Fire off another insult. How about an alky. You and rrb fit in the same cage anymore. You're cold hearted analysis seems to have been infected by trumpism. Okay that's an insult Roger shut up I won't do that again. Adios amigo BBQ ajora. My Spanish sucks

C.H. Truth said...

History and precedent clearly show that Meuller can investigate whatever he deems material to his mandate. You are still making an assumption about what "additional matters" means in the statute, and your assumption is at odds with actual practice.

WP... We know Fitzgerald went back and asked for more plenary authority and was given it. We know Starr got authorization from Reno to move his investigation into the perjury/Lewinski matter. Precedent probably shows that our special prosecutors "did" go back to the Justice department, rather than decide on their own to go fishing.

I am not sure what other precedent there is that you might be referring to.

That being said, my argument isn't to make a determination as to what Mueller will and will not deem to be material to his mandate.

My argument is with those who are arguing that somehow this letter from Rosenstein provides Mueller with a free pass to investigate "anything and everything" he sees fit.

My argument is that both the letter from Rosenstein, and the law itself provides that the Special Prosecutor is obligated to go back to the DAG (in this case) for authorization before expanding the scope outside of what he is tasked to investigate.

I think we can both agree that this is what the law states. The law is written in English and is relatively straight forward.

But - again - I am not making any judgement as to how Mueller will see his task. Nor am I making a judgement as to how far Mueller will push that limit.

You seem rather tied to this impression that just because I am quoting the law, that I am somehow projecting how Mueller will act. Not the case.

So you seem to be still making a straw man argument.

C.H. Truth said...

No, you don't quite understand. I thought they were much more correct than you were and your logic was flawed completely.

Roger - my response to the Rolling Stones argument was to actually quote Rosenstein, and then quote the law.

So I guess if you feel the author from Rolling Stone knows better than the Deputy Attorney General, and explains how things work better than the actual law that governs Special counsels...

If you truly feel that Rosenstein's letter and the actual law represent totally flawed logic...

Then that reinforces the concept that you actually "do" believe whatever it is you want to believe... and are a sheep to liberal journalists.

So there is no use in reasoning with you.

wphamilton said...

"That being said, my argument isn't to make a determination as to what Mueller will and will not deem to be material to his mandate. "

Apparently it is. You did write this:

"This means, legally speaking, that if Mueller has not gone back to Mueller and asked to expand his investigation into areas that have nothing to do with the 2016 investigation (even if Mueller feels those issues are necessary to resolve the issue) - and he is (as rumored) investigating Trump business dealings that have nothing to do with the 2016 election meddling, then he would be legally working outside of his scope."

Several things in this paragraph are wrong, as addressed in my arguments. Primarily, those things which Mueller "feels" (LOL) "necessary to resolve the issue" as you wrote. In other words, things which YOU deem to be outside of the scope - and you provide an example, so we know that's what you meant - would be in your opinion violations of the statute that you provided.

You have made the argument, here and in your previous blog post, that Rosenstein's statement means that this Special Investigation has remained within the narrow scope of nothing beyond Russia's interference in the election. The leaks are all wrong, couldn't be true because that would violate the statute, and Meuller won't do that - all per you. So you very much ARE arguing what Mueller will and will not deem relevant, and you ARE arguing that some of those things really aren't relevant.

Meanwhile, the FBI serves a warrant in an early morning raid of Trump's former campaign chairman. I guess the FBI and the judge who signed the warrant didn't get the memo.

Roger Amick said...

I'm using the same argument as wp. Your interpretation of the law was a joke. Your assumptions were based upon your feelings about stupid liberals. You were no more correct than the Rolling Stone writer. There is no reasoning with you.

Roger Amick said...

In order to get a warrant, you must convince the federal judge, that the person in question was dishonest in his or her sworn testimony. Or that they have evidence that the target of the warrant had failed to fully disclose his contracts with foreign countries.

Your arguments are not coherent, just angry and inaccurate. Demented alky!

Commonsense said...

Actually all you have to convince a federal judge of is that there is reasonable probable cause.

That's a pretty damn low bar. It's not much better than a rubber stamp.

Roger Amick said...

Not from everything I have read. It does depend on the judge, though. A reasonable cause isn't a low bar. Since you are innocent until proven guilty.

Commonsense said...

I don't think Democrat Underground is an authoritative legal source.

You are obviously confusing the standard for criminal conviction "beyond reasonable doubt" with the standard for obtaining a search warrant.

All a prosecutor has to do to get a warrant is to say "I believe there is evidence of a crime at this location and this is why I believe it."

In other words, if you can get a ham sandwich indicted it's even easier to get search warrant.