ANALYSIS: Constitution Compels Sessions Dismiss Mueller From Non-Campaign Cases

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
While this is not the only flaw in the analysis, it's the major flaw. This claim is simply false. Analogously, this would be like saying that a general of the armed forces is the de facto President of the United States, since the President has delegated to him certain of his (the President's) responsibilities as Commander in Chief.

The writer might say that, yes, for those responsibilities that were delegated to him by the President, he is acting as the de facto President ... in that limited area ... but more so when the President has declared it to be an area he would not involve himself in.

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

danielpalos said:
Why any reticence on the part of the AG, in being proactive in asserting his authority instead of abdicating his authority? Any other investigations could be proceeding as well.

The writer was suggesting that Sessions could tell Mueller to stick to what he was hired to do.
As I see it, the problem with him doing that is two-fold ... Sessions' recusal and the broad scope of Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller.

"Any other investigations could be proceeding as well." ... I'm not exactly sure of the point you're making there.

JasperL · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
The writer argued that.

And you apparently cannot defend his crap argument. So why not just say that instead the focus on definitions I clearly understood?

danielpalos · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
The writer was suggesting that Sessions could tell Mueller to stick to what he was hired to do.
As I see it, the problem with him doing that is two-fold ... Sessions' recusal and the broad scope of Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller.

"Any other investigations could be proceeding as well." ... I'm not exactly sure of the point you're making there.

Discovery already happened; and, the whole and entire thing happened, according to my understanding, is Because, "your guys got caught talking to foreign nationals about private profit instead of public profit."

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

JasperL said:
And you apparently cannot defend his crap argument. So why not just say that instead the focus on definitions I clearly understood?

Why not produce the de facto vs de jure definitions instead of your interpretation. Would have been simple to do.

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

danielpalos said:
Discovery already happened; and, the whole and entire thing happened, according to my understanding, is Because, "your guys got caught talking to foreign nationals about private profit instead of public profit."

Relative to the thread topic, you've lost me.
But in your quote "your guys got caught talking to foreign nationals about private profit instead of public profit." are you talking about Clinton and the Russians or Trump and the Russians or Obama and the Russians?
What exactly?

danielpalos · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
Relative to the thread topic, you've lost me.
But in your quote "your guys got caught talking to foreign nationals about private profit instead of public profit." are you talking about Clinton and the Russians or Trump and the Russians or Obama and the Russians?
What exactly?

dude; this is exactly why, I personally don't take the right wing very seriously the law, Constitutional or otherwise, and especially not politics. And, most especially, not in this thread.

Your guy is under investigation while in office.

JasperL · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
Why not produce the de facto vs de jure definitions instead of your interpretation. Would have been simple to do.

And there was and is no point in the stupid exercise. I'll restate my point:

You agree under the statute the special counsel operates under the supervision and authority of the AG, so that, de jure, Mueller doesn't have the authority of an AG - that's obvious in the statute.

The WRITER is arguing Mueller is a de facto AG, but if he doesn't hold that authority by virtue of the law, and he does NOT, then there must be some force or barrier that prevents the de jure AG from exercising his authority, thus allowing Mueller to operate as de facto AG without restraint from the de jure AG. Explain what that force or barrier might be.

Bottom line is delegating authority, then allowing those who act under that properly delegated authority without interference, does not transform those people into de facto bosses just because the boss allows them to do their delegated jobs without interference. If they're doing a good job the norm is boss does NOT intervene - this is by necessity in any large organization. Point is if Mueller is de facto AG there must be some REASON the de jure AGs, Rosenstein and/or Sessions, cannot effectively exercise supervisory authority.

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

danielpalos said:
dude; this is exactly why, I personally don't take the right wing very seriously the law, Constitutional or otherwise, and especially not politics. And, most especially, not in this thread.

Your guy is under investigation while in office.

If by "your guy" you mean Trump, then yeah, I know. It's been in all the papers.
But haven't you noticed that so far the only firm evidence of canoodling with Russia for the election campaign has been with your girl?
Are you typing posts from your phone?

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

JasperL said:
And there was and is no point in the stupid exercise. I'll restate my point:

You agree under the statute the special counsel operates under the supervision and authority of the AG, so that, de jure, Mueller doesn't have the authority of an AG - that's obvious in the statute.

The WRITER is arguing Mueller is a de facto AG, but if he doesn't hold that authority by virtue of the law, and he does NOT, then there must be some force or barrier that prevents the de jure AG from exercising his authority, thus allowing Mueller to operate as de facto AG without restraint from the de jure AG. Explain what that force or barrier might be.

Bottom line is delegating authority, then allowing those who act under that properly delegated authority without interference, does not transform those people into de facto bosses just because the boss allows them to do their delegated jobs without interference. If they're doing a good job the norm is boss does NOT intervene - this is by necessity in any large organization. Point is if Mueller is de facto AG there must be some REASON the de jure AGs, Rosenstein and/or Sessions, cannot effectively exercise supervisory authority.

Pleas see #26

danielpalos · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
If by "your guy" you mean Trump, then yeah, I know. It's been in all the papers.
But haven't you noticed that so far the only firm evidence of canoodling with Russia for the election campaign has been with your girl?
Are you typing posts from your phone?

haven't seen much of that.

Only that the right wing has nothing but socialism on a national basis when it comes to foreign and domestic policies, instead of the fine Capital plans, any good capitalist should have.

JasperL · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
Pleas see #26

"The writer might say that, yes, for those responsibilities that were delegated to him by the President, he is acting as the de facto President ... in that limited area ... "

OK, fine, then every prosecutor working on a case in which Sessions hasn't exerted his authority to intervene is also acting as 'de facto' AG.

but more so when the President has declared it to be an area he would not involve himself in.

Have Rosenstein and/or Sessions declared their intention to let Mueller run wild?

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

JasperL said:
"The writer might say that, yes, for those responsibilities that were delegated to him by the President, he is acting as the de facto President ... in that limited area ... "

OK, fine, then every prosecutor working on a case in which Sessions hasn't exerted his authority to intervene is also acting as 'de facto' AG.

Have Rosenstein and/or Sessions declared their intention to let Mueller run wild?

Should that occur, we'd have to determine what those areas are and if Sessions is complicit, assuming he's aware, by his action or his inaction.
The argument the writer is making is that Mueller is poking around areas beyond what he was authorized to investigate ... the campaign. To him, it's obvious.
If it's a pursuit for which only the AG would be authorized to make the call and he didn't delegate that authority then, yes, he's acting as de facto AG.
That's especially true for something intended to have limitations like a Special Counsel ... although they just don't work out that way, do they.

ashurbanipal · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
The writer might say that, yes, for those responsibilities that were delegated to him by the President, he is acting as the de facto President ... in that limited area ... but more so when the President has declared it to be an area he would not involve himself in.

No. That does not conform to how we usually use these terms. The general is the general, not the President, and that's an end to the matter. Everyone understands that, as a general, he carries out some duties that could be carried out by the President were the latter so inclined. Similarly, attorneys working at the DoJ carry out some duties that Sessions could, if he were so inclined, take up or carry out. That doesn't mean that those other attorneys are de facto attorneys general.

The reason Sessions won't take up Mueller's duties is because doing so would smack of bias. Not because he would be legally barred from doing so--and then, even if he were, that would mean that Mueller is not acting in any role Sessions could take, and hence there is still no argument to be had.

The point asserted in the article is simply false.

bubbabgone · Mar 30, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
No. That does not conform to how we usually use these terms. The general is the general, not the President, and that's an end to the matter. Everyone understands that, as a general, he carries out some duties that could be carried out by the President were the latter so inclined. Similarly, attorneys working at the DoJ carry out some duties that Sessions could, if he were so inclined, take up or carry out. That doesn't mean that those other attorneys are de facto attorneys general.

The reason Sessions won't take up Mueller's duties is because doing so would smack of bias. Not because he would be legally barred from doing so--and then, even if he were, that would mean that Mueller is not acting in any role Sessions could take, and hence there is still no argument to be had.

The point asserted in the article is simply false.

You're neglecting the fact that we're talking about Mueller's unique assignment.
If Sessions determined that Mueller was overstepping his charge he could absolutely reign him in.
He doesn't do that for a couple of reasons:
1) because it would be politically ruinous even if it was a legitimate move
2) because it wouldn't be a cut & cry legitimate move anyway because of the structure of Rosenstein's letter ordering the Special Counsel.

Still, in the writer's opinion, Mueller was doing that precise thing.
Overstepping his charge by acting beyond what the writer perceives to be the scope of the Special Counsel assignment when Mueller decided to investigate something the AG would normally have to decide to (or not to) investigate.
Thus he thinks Mueller was acting as de facto AG

polgara · Mar 30, 2018

bubbabgone said:
You're neglecting the fact that we're talking about Mueller's unique assignment.
If Sessions determined that Mueller was overstepping his charge he could absolutely reign him in.
He doesn't do that for a couple of reasons:
1) because it would be politically ruinous even if it was a legitimate move
2) because it wouldn't be a cut & cry legitimate move anyway because of the structure of Rosenstein's letter ordering the Special Counsel.

Still, in the writer's opinion, Mueller was doing that precise thing.
Overstepping his charge by acting beyond what the writer perceives to be the scope of the Special Counsel assignment when Mueller decided to investigate something the AG would normally have to decide to (or not to) investigate.
Thus he thinks Mueller was acting as de facto AG

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

I thought there were specific items that needed to be looked at - Russian collusion in Trump's case, as an example - but it now seems that it has grown way beyond that. What exactly is being looked at now? Am I missing something?

bubbabgone · Mar 31, 2018

polgara said:
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

I thought there were specific items that needed to be looked at - Russian collusion in Trump's case, as an example - but it now seems that it has grown way beyond that. What exactly is being looked at now? Am I missing something?

It does make a person wonder how much of this is a search for truth and if these players are the right ones to be doing the search.

ashurbanipal · Mar 31, 2018

bubbabgone said:
You're neglecting the fact that we're talking about Mueller's unique assignment.
If Sessions determined that Mueller was overstepping his charge he could absolutely reign him in.
He doesn't do that for a couple of reasons:
1) because it would be politically ruinous even if it was a legitimate move
2) because it wouldn't be a cut & cry legitimate move anyway because of the structure of Rosenstein's letter ordering the Special Counsel.

Still, in the writer's opinion, Mueller was doing that precise thing.
Overstepping his charge by acting beyond what the writer perceives to be the scope of the Special Counsel assignment when Mueller decided to investigate something the AG would normally have to decide to (or not to) investigate.
Thus he thinks Mueller was acting as de facto AG

Sure, Sessions could reign Mueller in, and sure, there would be a significant price for roughly the reasons you suggest. And it could be the case that Sessions wants to reign Mueller in for sound legal cause but won't because of the reasons you propose. It could also be that Sessions has no rationally or legally valid reason for wanting to do so, and he also might not want to reign Mueller in. I'm not sure I understand what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

That Mueller might have gone beyond his brief (I don't think he has, but I'll grant the point arguendo) is hardly a reason to think he's a de facto attorney general. Prosecutors are always happy to follow evidence wherever it leads to expose a crime. That's generally a standard of prosecutorial conduct, and indeed, if the prosecutor suspects a crime, it would be unethical not to investigate it. That does not mean that those prosecutors are de facto attorneys general. Moreover, Mueller's authority is constituted by Rosenstein's letter of appointment and the relevant statutes, and that letter presents Mueller very broad scope. He has an epistemic burden to meet as anyone arrested comes to trial, and then I guess we'll see--but we have no current basis for even evaluating the claim that he has exceeded his brief.

bubbabgone · Mar 31, 2018

ashurbanipal said:
Sure, Sessions could reign Mueller in, and sure, there would be a significant price for roughly the reasons you suggest. And it could be the case that Sessions wants to reign Mueller in for sound legal cause but won't because of the reasons you propose. It could also be that Sessions has no rationally or legally valid reason for wanting to do so, and he also might not want to reign Mueller in. I'm not sure I understand what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

That Mueller might have gone beyond his brief (I don't think he has, but I'll grant the point arguendo) is hardly a reason to think he's a de facto attorney general. Prosecutors are always happy to follow evidence wherever it leads to expose a crime. That's generally a standard of prosecutorial conduct, and indeed, if the prosecutor suspects a crime, it would be unethical not to investigate it. That does not mean that those prosecutors are de facto attorneys general. Moreover, Mueller's authority is constituted by Rosenstein's letter of appointment and the relevant statutes, and that letter presents Mueller very broad scope. He has an epistemic burden to meet as anyone arrested comes to trial, and then I guess we'll see--but we have no current basis for even evaluating the claim that he has exceeded his brief.

If Mueller takes actions and makes decisions that are reserved for the AG, and are also beyond the scope of his own delegated responsibilities, then it can be said in that way he's acting as de facto AG.
That was the writer's point.

ashurbanipal · Mar 31, 2018

bubbabgone said:
If Mueller takes actions and makes decisions that are reserved for the AG, and are also beyond the scope of his own delegated responsibilities, then it can be said in that way he's acting as de facto AG.
That was the writer's point.

And my point is that: 1) The sufficient condition in that conditional statement is false (that is, it's not true that Mueller is taking actions reserved for the AG), and 2) even if he were, it would still not be the case that Mueller becomes a de facto AG.

Fishking · Mar 31, 2018

Mach said:
The defacto AG? That's absurd. Only morons would suggest that or believe it.

While investigating the many crimes of Manafort, they identified suspicious financial activity which lead them to the discover of more, and more crimes. And you want federal prosecutors to give them a pass because....you love Trump?

No, because it's outside the realm of his appointed scope and authority. It's a clear violation of search and seizure to have someone investigate any private citizen they feel like it, for any reason they feel like it, and keep digging and digging until they find something.

JasperL · Mar 31, 2018

Fishking said:
No, because it's outside the realm of his appointed scope and authority. It's a clear violation of search and seizure to have someone investigate any private citizen they feel like it, for any reason they feel like it, and keep digging and digging until they find something.

But Mueller was authorized by Rosenstein (acting AG for that purpose) to investigate Trump and members of his campaign, so the bolded simply did not happen. Sorry. The politically appointed and confirmed by the Senate acting AG initiated the investigation and oversees it, and can limit its scope or shut it down at any time. For some reason you guys are concluding that because Rosenstein/Sessions have NOT limited the Mueller inquiry, that Mueller has the power of those who just by the statute CAN limit it and end it.

And the "keep digging and digging until they find something" is just conjecture, speculation. There's no evidence he went beyond his mandate. Step 1 would be to follow the money, and if he follows the money and finds money laundering and tax evasion in the $millions like he did with Manafort and Gates, what is he supposed to do?

danielpalos · Apr 1, 2018

polgara said:
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

I thought there were specific items that needed to be looked at - Russian collusion in Trump's case, as an example - but it now seems that it has grown way beyond that. What exactly is being looked at now? Am I missing something?

Influence peddling with Russians, is ongoing. Remember, right wingers, it was, "Your guys that got caught talking to foreign nationals."

Fishking · Apr 1, 2018

JasperL said:
But Mueller was authorized by Rosenstein (acting AG for that purpose) to investigate Trump and members of his campaign, so the bolded simply did not happen.

Nope. He was authorized to investigate Russian collusion. That means all authority is invested in tracking that down. Further, warrants can only be given for specific reasons, meaning his reasons were for collusion and any crime uncovered that is not related cannot be used. So something like money laundering wouldn't be part of that, obviously.

So, yes, it's exactly what happened.

JasperL · Apr 1, 2018

Fishking said:
Nope. He was authorized to investigate Russian collusion. That means all authority is invested in tracking that down. Further, warrants can only be given for specific reasons, meaning his reasons were for collusion and any crime uncovered that is not related cannot be used. So something like money laundering wouldn't be part of that, obviously.

So, yes, it's exactly what happened.

First of all, the part of my post you omitted and ignored is significant. Mueller's investigation is subject to the ongoing oversight and approval of the AG, so it's nice you want to ignore that but it is deadly to your point. He does NOT have the powers of the AG because the AG has complete authority over the investigation, including the authority to fire Mueller this second and shut the whole thing down. If you want to assert that's irrelevant, fine, tell us why, but ignoring the point is lazy hackery.

The letter appointing Mueller:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation con nned by then-FBI Director James 8. Co ey in testimony be re the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links an 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 om the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

Sorry, but the plain text of the power delegated to Mueller by Rosenstein proves you wrong.

Further, the idea that if the FBI starts a, say, drug investigation, then finds evidence of a child porn ring, and is unable to use the evidence for child porn uncovered in their drug investigation is laughable.