Gingrich calls Mueller investigation 'breakdown' of constitutional law

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

What is it?  Your guys says one thing, Dershowitz says another.  I know you believe your guy, but that is simply a political decision.

Who are my guys? None of the lawyers we've linked to ("yours" or "mine") have any more knowledge than we do, if I'm not mistaken. They are all just speculating, just like we are speculating. None of us have any real weight in the issue.

 

I'm forming my understanding of what the criminal suspicion is based on the order from the DAG to appoint a Special Council. He listed what he wanted the SC to investigate, which would be what he has suspicion of.  I'm not asking for more details than that because it is not expected for the public to have more details then that. I'm not assuming that because we don't have more details, it's somehow suspicious and perhaps he just made it all up. I have no reason to believe the the DAG wasn't operating under standard procedure.

 

How about this - It may help your point if you go back and find examples of Special Council appointments where the Attorney General has laid out specific evidence and reasoning behind their clinical suspicion. If you can show that it is "standard" for them to explain everything to the public before appointing a Special Council, then by all means we can discuss why this case is special. Some other cases may have more public knowledge because the crime was more public (Watergate, for example, was already public knowledge). But I'd love to see examples where the Attorney General (or whoever is acting as the AG at the time) lists his/her specific reasons for opening the Council, and provides specific evidence for those suspicions.

[Dashinka 24,848]

53 minutes ago, bcking said:

Who are my guys? None of the lawyers we've linked to ("yours" or "mine") have any more knowledge than we do, if I'm not mistaken. They are all just speculating, just like we are speculating. None of us have any real weight in the issue.

 

I'm forming my understanding of what the criminal suspicion is based on the order from the DAG to appoint a Special Council. He listed what he wanted the SC to investigate, which would be what he has suspicion of.  I'm not asking for more details than that because it is not expected for the public to have more details then that. I'm not assuming that because we don't have more details, it's somehow suspicious and perhaps he just made it all up. I have no reason to believe the the DAG wasn't operating under standard procedure.

 

How about this - It may help your point if you go back and find examples of Special Council appointments where the Attorney General has laid out specific evidence and reasoning behind their clinical suspicion. If you can show that it is "standard" for them to explain everything to the public before appointing a Special Council, then by all means we can discuss why this case is special. Some other cases may have more public knowledge because the crime was more public (Watergate, for example, was already public knowledge). But I'd love to see examples where the Attorney General (or whoever is acting as the AG at the time) lists his/her specific reasons for opening the Council, and provides specific evidence for those suspicions.

Mueller’s Marching Orders

Under the law granting him legal authority (28 CFR 600), a special counsel is charged with investigating crimes.  Only crimes.  Nothing else.  He has limited jurisdiction.  Any other wrongdoing uncovered in the investigation which does not rise to the level of a criminal offense cannot even be made public by the special counsel.  That is the law.    

So what crime is Mueller instructed to investigate?  Let take a look. 

In his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump”. 

But wait.  If Mueller is supposed to look for evidence of a crime that is not, by legal definition, a crime…then isn’t the special counsel being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable?   Doesn’t the impossibility of his assignment render the exercise futile?  The answer is yes.  

 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/05/23/gregg-jarrett-what-is-robert-mueller-investigating-since-collusion-is-not-crime.html

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

He is investigating crimes. "Coordination with the Russian government" can include several kinds of crimes, many involving conspiracy.

 

You want examples? There have been about a dozen criminal charges so far...most fitting with his initial brief of coordination between Russia and individuals associated with Donald Trump  I believe those that don't fit directly have to do with lying in previous testimonies on the issue. You can go through the list yourself.

 

So there was a suspicion and now in retrospect we can even confirm the suspicion was well founded enough to bring criminal charges. Even if there weren't any criminal charges the suspicion still could have been well founded...but in this case it has also born fruit.

 

Seems pretty appropriate to me...

Edited April 18, 2018 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

"."But wait.  If Mueller is supposed to look for evidence of a crime that is not, by legal definition, a crime…then isn’t the special counsel being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable?   Doesn’t the impossibility of his assignment render the exercise futile?  The answer is yes"

 

I thought by now most grown adults understood our criminal system by now. Anyone who has seen one episode of law and order could describe the system better than this guy. The first evidence that Mueller has been involved in a criminal investigation is the long list of guilty pleas and indictments.

[bcking 3,157]

26 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If Mueller is supposed to look for evidence of a crime that is not, by legal definition, a crime…then isn’t the special counsel being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable?   Doesn’t the impossibility of his assignment render the exercise futile?  The answer is yes.  

It's funny. I wouldn't say something is impossible if it's already happened more than a dozen times.

 

There are already criminal charges on more than 12 people/organizations. Conspiracy is a form of cooperation and guess what? It's a crima. So much for the "impossibility" of his job. Mueller must be a good...doing the "impossible"

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by bcking