Who do you think is right about Rosenstein VS GOP House Members

Fletch said:

And if 'the laws of the nation' werent followed with regard to the investigation, you are ok with that I assume. Plus, if you truly thought shutting down the investigation would hand the House and the Senate to the dems, you wouldnt be resisting the release of these documents.

Click to expand...

Praxas said:

Not during and ongoing investigation and that is the standard for any investigation.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Nothing has proven that the investigation legal. That's what Congress is asking for. Rosenstein is hiding something.

Click to expand...

Casper said:

Look everyone knows why some Repubs and Trump are attacking Rossinstien, he won't end the investigation. Remove him, install a suckup that will end it and the obstruction of Justice will be obvious to anyone with half a brain, then the backlash begins.

Click to expand...

Gaugingcatenate said:

With the proper security clearences, and especially with the amount of lying, two tiered justice heavy thumbing the scales of Justice and the FBI, our elected officials with the Constitutional right and duty of oversight... you are clearly, purely partisanly, flat out wrong.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

He also refuses to show that the investigation is legit.

If the investigation is illegal, should it be termnated?

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Nothing has proven that the investigation legal. That's what Congress is asking for. Rosenstein is hiding something.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

Let's be clear...It's not Rosenstein who'd be giving up documents, it'd be the DoJ. The documents aren't Rosenstein's personal papers.


What those members of Congress are attempting to do is make public information pertaining to the government's ongoing investigations into specific matters of personal import to one of their political allies. By rights, Sessions should step up and just tell Congress flat out, "When the investigation and any related proceedings in court are done, you can have all the documents you've requested, but you will not be given anything that may compromise the DoJ's ability to investigate and prosecute potential criminal activity. Period."


The notion that Congress, a body with no law enforcement authority, should have any visibility to the details of an ongoing criminal investigation is preposterous. Were they allowed to have that information, they could obtain it to advantage any political ally or even themselves, individual members of Congress.

apdst said:

They only asking to see Rosenstein's orders to the special counsel. There's no impropriety in asking for that. Congress has the authority to ask for proof that the investigation is legitimate. Congress represents The People and The People have a right to know.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

• Not even disclose that the investigation had commenced.
  • The only reason we even know of the "Russia" investigation is because Comey stated it had during his Congressional testimony. That investigation had, by the time of his remarks, been quietly and without any political "baggage" going on for months and nobody knew about it.
    • Investigators don't generally disclose the nature and subjects/targets of their investigations because they know that it's every bit as possible that they find no culpable offenses and their job isn't to destroy people's reputations by burdening them publicly with the cloud of having been investigated. It's only Congress that aims to make into a political matter the fact of one's being investigated; cops, the FBI and DoJ aim to keep that information quiet unless and until they file charges. That's as it should be.
    • Investigators also don't generally disclose the nature and subjects/targets of their investigations because doing so risks compromising the strength of their case in at least two dimensions:
      • that of the defendant destroying potentially probative information that may reside existentially or in the minds of witnesses and
      • that of prejudicing potential jurors, thus making it harder to empanel jurors who are sufficiently naive to the nature, extent and details of evidence that may have to be presented -- that naivete is critical to obtaining a jury that is plausibly and sufficiently impartial with regard to the probativeness and relevance of the evidence. The concern about the jury is particularly important in matters pertaining to celebrities, be they entertainment, business, political, or otherwise. It is all the more important in D.C. as goes political cases because much of D.C's local news consists of a lot of political news. Conceptually, it's the same as were the matter one pertaining to an entertainer in Los Angeles, an auto industry exec/firm in Detroit, or a financier in New York City.
• Even releasing that "so and so" is a subject -- someone being questioned as a witness or as someone viewed as a target/perpetrator of a culpable act -- of an investigation, they still won't, until the investigative and court proceedings (if any) are completed.
  • If prosecutors file charges against one, there will be a discovery period during which the defendant(s) are given all the information to which the prosecutors had access and that they will use to argue their case that "so and so" committed "such and such" act(s) for which s/he be legally culpable.
    • Insofar as the POTUS cannot, under current DoJ policy, be indicted, there's certainly not going to be a criminal charge levied against Trump...at least not while he holds the Presidency. Accordingly, there will be no discovery process during that period and neither does there need to be.
• The scope of the investigation is part and parcel to the nature of information investigators/prosecutors are using to determine whether the subjects/targets have committed acts for which they are culpable. Trump allies in Congress is attempting to accelerate the discovery process.

independentusa said:

Several GOP House members are trying to force Rosenstein to give up documents concerning the Mueller investigation. It has been a long standing policy of the DOJ that you don't give up such info during a continuing investigation. Many believe that the reason for the requests by the GOP is two fold. One to get the information to help them protect the president by knowing where the investigation is going and providing such information to the Whitehouse to be used as ammunition against Mueller. The second is to force Rosenstein to say no and thus to give them ammo to impeach him. Rosenstein makes two arguments. The first is that it has been a long standing policy not to give up such information, especially knowing the use it would be used for. The second is more of a constitutional argument, that it involves the separation of powers. The GOP House members are part of the legislative branch of government and the DOJ is part of both the executive branch or the judicial branch depending on your outlook. So do you think that the GOP House members should use Rosenstein's refusal to give up the information as an excuse to impeach him, or do you think that Rosenstein is doing the right thing in refusing?

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

Trump could simply order Rosenstein to release the documents.

Click to expand...

biff_poindexter said:

The GOP should have access to everything -- from what I am told, the Mueller is not sharing everything they have with Trump's lawyers as to not tip their hand...and that is just plain not fair -- The GOP should have all the evidence so they can share it with Trumps' legal team and better formulate a strategy to defeat Mueller and arrest Hillary

Click to expand...

JackA said:

Just as he could "simply" order him to fire Mueller. Not as simple as it sounds.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

Yeah, but at some point they have to worry about the optics. Adam Schiff said yesterday that he wanted to dial down the impeachment talk because the Democrats didn't want to be seen as "nullifying an election".

I can't help but believe that there are anti-Trumpers saying, "Man, this sure isn't going as smooth and clean as I thought it would and it's starting to look bad".

Click to expand...

JackA said:

Just as he could "simply" order him to fire Mueller. Not as simple as it sounds.

Click to expand...

Xelor said:

If a law enforcement organization opened an investigation into yours, my or anyone else's affairs, it would:

• Not even disclose that the investigation had commenced.
  • The only reason we even know of the "Russia" investigation is because Comey stated it had during his Congressional testimony. That investigation had, by the time of his remarks, been quietly and without any political "baggage" going on for months and nobody knew about it.
    • Investigators don't generally disclose the nature and subjects/targets of their investigations because they know that it's every bit as possible that they find no culpable offenses and their job isn't to destroy people's reputations by burdening them publicly with the cloud of having been investigated. It's only Congress that aims to make into a political matter the fact of one's being investigated; cops, the FBI and DoJ aim to keep that information quiet unless and until they file charges. That's as it should be.
    • Investigators also don't generally disclose the nature and subjects/targets of their investigations because doing so risks compromising the strength of their case in at least two dimensions:
      • that of the defendant destroying potentially probative information that may reside existentially or in the minds of witnesses and
      • that of prejudicing potential jurors, thus making it harder to empanel jurors who are sufficiently naive to the nature, extent and details of evidence that may have to be presented -- that naivete is critical to obtaining a jury that is plausibly and sufficiently impartial with regard to the probativeness and relevance of the evidence. The concern about the jury is particularly important in matters pertaining to celebrities, be they entertainment, business, political, or otherwise. It is all the more important in D.C. as goes political cases because much of D.C's local news consists of a lot of political news. Conceptually, it's the same as were the matter one pertaining to an entertainer in Los Angeles, an auto industry exec/firm in Detroit, or a financier in New York City.
• Even releasing that "so and so" is a subject -- someone being questioned as a witness or as someone viewed as a target/perpetrator of a culpable act -- of an investigation, they still won't, until the investigative and court proceedings (if any) are completed.
  • If prosecutors file charges against one, there will be a discovery period during which the defendant(s) are given all the information to which the prosecutors had access and that they will use to argue their case that "so and so" committed "such and such" act(s) for which s/he be legally culpable.
    • Insofar as the POTUS cannot, under current DoJ policy, be indicted, there's certainly not going to be a criminal charge levied against Trump...at least not while he holds the Presidency. Accordingly, there will be no discovery process during that period and neither does there need to be.
• The scope of the investigation is part and parcel to the nature of information investigators/prosecutors are using to determine whether the subjects/targets have committed acts for which they are culpable. Trump allies in Congress is attempting to accelerate the discovery process.

Releasing the information Trump's Congressional allies have requested subjects it to public disclosure, which in turn can compromise the integrity of the investigation, which, even though there won't immediately be any charges levied against the POTUS, must be as thorough as is possible for it to be.

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

It is that simple. The problem is political.

Click to expand...

Casper said:

Proof of claim, or wishful thinking. The worst thing Repubs or Trump could do would be to terminate the investigation, most Americans would then know who is attempting to ignore the law. Choices have Consequences, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

Mr. Mueller is a special prosecutor, governed by the rules and regs which permit his appointment.
His office is required to state that which crime he is investigating.

Click to expand...

JackA said:

Political problems are simple?

And it is more than political. It is executive interference in a legal matter. It is obstruction of justice depending on the purpose of the interference.

Click to expand...

apdst said:

It opens that door, if the Muellerjahadeen doesn't cough up the unredacted memo. A person has a constitutional right to face his accusers and to see all the evidence against him.

I didn't miss anything, but the appeals court is going to ask for the same thing that Ellis is asking for. If the Muellerjahadeen doesn't produce it, they'll lose the appeal.

Then, there's the political aspect: if the Muellerjahadeen doesn't produce the unredacted memo, the people are going to ask what they're hiding. That won't be good for the Democrats who insist this isn't a witch hunt. It already looks bad enough that Rosenstein want produce an unredacted version of the memo to congress.

Click to expand...

Fletch said:

The investigation needs to be ended if it is nothing more than a witch hunt. And no, I dont believe dems would sweep into office if the investigation were halted. That is just wishful thinking on your part. Lunatic, Trump-hating liberals are already going to show up at the polls this November even if Trump were to be exonerated completely by Mueller. The rest of America either likes Trump or doesnt want to see the kook-fringe left controlling government. If no evidence of collusion is found, Trump doesnt get removed from office

Click to expand...

Athanasius68 said:

An investigation and prosecution IS an executive responsibility.

Click to expand...

Casper said:

First off I never said that I want the Dems to take complete control, I am not a Dem. I am simply informing you of the Highly Likely result of killing the investigation without letting it be completed. You disagree with that, i get that you are confident in the support of the voters, I am only warning you that confidence is one thing, arrogance is another, and rarely works out.

Click to expand...