• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

B

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,003
Reaction score
17,942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Paul Manafort‘s legal team brought a motion to dismiss on Tuesday, noting that Rosenstein could not appoint Mueller to any investigation outside the scope of the 2016 campaign since Sessions did not recuse himself for anything outside the campaign. I agree with this take on Mueller’s authority. If we follow that argument that would mean Sessions himself has exclusive authority to appoint a special counsel for non-collusion charges, and Sessions has taken no such action. Sessions himself should make that clear to Mueller, rather than await court resolution. Doing so would remove three of the four areas of inquiry from Mueller’s requested interview with President Trump.
Click to expand...
...
In sum, Sessions notifying Mueller he does not have authority to act on non-campaign related investigations would restore Mueller’s special counsel’s office to its intended Constitutional constrictions, remove the Beria-style investigative techniques witnessed over the past year, and restore public faith that our Constitutional democracy is still a Constitutional democracy. It would also prove Sessions is more than as Trump calls him — Mr. Magoo.
Click to expand...

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/con...ns-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/

I get his point, but I'm sure the argument is that dissecting business arrangements with Russia way back when can shed light on contemporary election practices and perhaps demonstrate motivational links.

But then there's ...

One argument for Mueller investigating 2005 tax crimes and 2010 bank fraud crimes and 2013 foreign agent crimes was that Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate all crimes that “directly arise” from the investigation. As some legal critics noted, there were always two problems with this interpretation of Rosenstein’s authorization: first, if it could be interpreted so broadly, it would make Mueller a de facto Attorney General of the United States, which the Appointments Clause does not permit, rendering such an authorization in violation; second, if it could be interpreted as broadly as Mueller has done so, then it failed to conform to the statutes and regulations governing special counsel authorizations. Regardless, Sessions retaking his authority formally would render the issue moot. Why? Because Rosenstein himself did not have the authority to create a special counsel for anything beyond the areas Sessions recused himself.
Click to expand...

hmmmmmm
 
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?

The party that wants to hunt down illegals that have been here doing good work for 20 years and deport their entire family, but want to let ****ing Manafort off because of a political narrative? What kind of person are you exactly? It's a word almost like Adorable.

Besides, Republican have to keep up their trend of criminals caught in action.

Crimes_by_Admin.png
 
bubbabgone said:
...

https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/con...ns-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/

I get his point, but I'm sure the argument is that dissecting business arrangements with Russia way back when can shed light on contemporary election practices and perhaps demonstrate motivational links.

But then there's ...

hmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Bottom line is the Trump lemmings are getting desperate. Manafort was caught red handed laundering $millions through offshore accounts, and the lemmings want it thrown out on a technicality, basically, and for Mueller to be prohibited from investigating and charging other crimes that come up unless somehow directly related to "collusion", which isn't actually the 'crime' being investigated or what was outlined in the letter appointing Mueller.

I guess when you are as completely f'd as Manafort appears to be, worth a try I guess!

BTW, the dishonest hackery at the basis of this garbage is obvious from this line: "2005 tax crimes and 2010 bank fraud crimes and 2013 foreign agent crimes." The tax evasion and bank fraud might have started in 2005 and 2010, but continued until at least 2016. So Mueller followed the money, which is kind of step 1 in this thing, and found money laundering and massive tax fraud going on at that moment. Does this guy really want to assert Mueller must ignore those crimes? LOL....
 
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?

The party that wants to hunt down illegals that have been here doing good work for 20 years and deport their entire family, but want to let ****ing Manafort off because of a political narrative? What kind of person are you exactly? It's a word almost like Adorable.

Besides, Republican have to keep up their trend of criminals caught in action.

View attachment 67230820
Click to expand...



Wow; just look at that graph ................ The GOP & the Republi****s really know how to **** up AmeriKKKa ...............
 
bubbabgone said:
hmmmmmm
Click to expand...

You can read Roseinstein's letter appointing Mueller here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

In part:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey 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. s. 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.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the special counsel.





28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a):

(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.


28. C.F.R. s. 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.


28. C.F.R. s. 600.7 is about (a) following established practices, (b) independence from daily supervision but subject to various AG control, (c) being subject to disciplinary action for misconduct, (d) immunization from removal of office other than by the AG.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.8 is about access to DOJ resources and reporting reqs.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.9 is about the AG having to tell persons on the judiciary committees about various acts taken with regard to the Special Counsel, and about possible release of those reports

28. C.F.R. s. 600.10 "The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative."

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...nt-scope-meullers-inquiry.html#post1068184324
 
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?

The party that wants to hunt down illegals that have been here doing good work for 20 years and deport their entire family, but want to let ****ing Manafort off because of a political narrative? What kind of person are you exactly? It's a word almost like Adorable.

Besides, Republican have to keep up their trend of criminals caught in action.

View attachment 67230820
Click to expand...


You need to get a grip on your emotions ... and your reasoning.
De facto AG for the very reason you said.
"While investigating the many crimes of Manafort, they identified suspicious financial activity which lead them to the discover of more, and more crimes. "
Mueller didn't have the charge to investigate all crimes. That's what an AG would do. Thus de facto AG.

As for that bull**** weepy stuff about illegals doing good work and supporting your family, it's off point but it raises a couple of points ...
1) Please, for your own good, lay off the Dem Party talking points. You could end up repeating them in public and others might dismiss you out of hand because of it.
2) "The crime rate among illegal immigrants in Arizona is twice that of other residents, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Friday, citing a new report based on conviction data.
The report, from the Crime Prevention Research Center, used a previously untapped set of data from Arizona that detailed criminal convictions and found that illegal immigrants between 15 and 35 are less than 3 percent of the state’s population, but nearly 8 percent of its prison population.".
 
Mr Person said:
You can read Roseinstein's letter appointing Mueller here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...nt-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

In part:

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey 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. s. 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.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600.10 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the special counsel.





28 C.F.R. s. 600.4(a):

(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.


28. C.F.R. s. 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.


28. C.F.R. s. 600.7 is about (a) following established practices, (b) independence from daily supervision but subject to various AG control, (c) being subject to disciplinary action for misconduct, (d) immunization from removal of office other than by the AG.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.8 is about access to DOJ resources and reporting reqs.

28. C.F.R. s. 600.9 is about the AG having to tell persons on the judiciary committees about various acts taken with regard to the Special Counsel, and about possible release of those reports

28. C.F.R. s. 600.10 "The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative."

https://www.debatepolitics.com/gene...nt-scope-meullers-inquiry.html#post1068184324
Click to expand...

I know.
That was addressed in the guy's piece.
That was his point.
He said Rosenstein's charge to Mueller was too broad in that it gave him authority to act as the de facto AG without a nomination by a President and confirmation by the Senate.
 
bubbabgone said:
I know.
That was addressed in the guy's piece.
That was his point.
He said Rosenstein's charge to Mueller was too broad in that it gave him authority to act as the de facto AG without a nomination by a President and confirmation by the Senate.
Click to expand...

He's wrong...
 
bubbabgone said:
I know.
That was addressed in the guy's piece.
That was his point.
He said Rosenstein's charge to Mueller was too broad in that it gave him authority to act as the de facto AG without a nomination by a President and confirmation by the Senate.
Click to expand...

The problem with this theory is Mueller is supervised by and can be fired, or his authority to investigate certain matters limited or prohibited, by Rosenstein, and/or arguably Sessions. So he's not acting as de facto AG because he's subject to the authority of the AG.

The author's chief complaint was that Sessions hasn't exerted his authority and should exert it by shutting down any Mueller investigation not directly related to "collusion.' Well, fine, but Sessions hasn't done that and I've seen no legal argument Sessions cannot properly delegate that to his underlings, or that Sessions' failure to exert his authority is a basis for throwing out the charges Mueller brought under the supervision of Rosenstein acting with the authority granted him by his boss, the AG. At the very least, Rosenstein can be fired by Sessions if Sessions believes Rosenstein is acting improperly or illegally here.

He writes:

Constitutionally, Sessions has a “duty to direct and supervise litigation” conducted by the Department of Justice. Ethically, professionally, and legally, Sessions cannot ignore his supervisory obligations for cases that are not related to the “campaigns for President.”
Click to expand...

The problem is Sessions delegates authority by necessity, and allows those under him to pursue cases as they see fit unless or until Sessions gets involved. His failure to do so and personally approve warrants, etc. in the thousands of cases the DoJ handles over a given period isn't a basis to throw out those cases.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
The problem with this theory is Mueller is supervised by and can be fired, or his authority to investigate certain matters limited or prohibited, by Rosenstein, and/or arguably Sessions. So he's not acting as de facto AG because he's subject to the authority of the AG.

...
Click to expand...
That's why it's de facto and not de jure.
 
bubbabgone said:
That's why it's de facto and not de jure.
Click to expand...

How is he "de facto" AG when he is clearly, by the statute, subject to the authority of Sessions/Rosenstein?

Under this theory, every prosecutor is "de facto" AG whenever Sessions chooses not to intervene in their handling of a given case. It's nonsense. For Mueller to be "de facto" AG you need to assert some 'force' that prevents Rosenstein and/or Sessions from exercising the clear authority the statute grants them over Mueller's investigation, including the authority to fire him and shut it down tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
How is he "de facto" AG when he is clearly, by the statute, subject to the authority of Sessions/Rosenstein?

Under this theory, every prosecutor is "de facto" AG whenever Sessions chooses not to intervene in their handling of a given case. It's nonsense. For Mueller to be "de facto" AG you need to assert some 'force' that prevents Rosenstein and/or Sessions from exercising the clear authority the statute grants them over Mueller's investigation, including the authority to fire him and shut it down tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Look up the definitions of both.
 
bubbabgone said:
I know.
That was addressed in the guy's piece.
That was his point.
He said Rosenstein's charge to Mueller was too broad in that it gave him authority to act as the de facto AG without a nomination by a President and confirmation by the Senate.
Click to expand...

That is because Sessions has to recuse himself from any matters regarding the Russia investigation.
 
bubbabgone said:
Look up the definitions of both.
Click to expand...

I know the definitions.

"For Mueller to be "de facto" AG you need to assert some 'force' that prevents Rosenstein and/or Sessions from exercising the clear authority the statute grants them over Mueller's investigation, including the authority to fire him and shut it down tomorrow."
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That is because Sessions has to recuse himself from any matters regarding the Russia investigation.
Click to expand...

Right. And the writer's point was that, in his view, the investigation has expanded to what he believes is beyond the scope of Rosenstein's appointment letter.
I'd add ... investigated selectively.

An additional way to look at it is that there are certain provisions in Rosenstein's letter authorizing the Special Counsel that don't preclude Mueller from also investigating the Hillary Clinton campaign involvement with a set of Russian players trying to influence our election in their own way.
And since there's way more evidence of that right now, should he?
Given his charge, would you think he already is?
If he does, would you enthusiastically approve?
 
JasperL said:
I know the definitions.

"For Mueller to be "de facto" AG you need to assert some 'force' that prevents Rosenstein and/or Sessions from exercising the clear authority the statute grants them over Mueller's investigation, including the authority to fire him and shut it down tomorrow."
Click to expand...
(Did you just quote yourself as a source?)

But anyway, you're wrong.
Reproduce both complete definitions here.
 
bubbabgone said:
(Did you just quote yourself as a source?)
Click to expand...

Nope, was repeating the argument I made to address your point but that you ignored the first time.

But anyway, you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No YOU are wrong!! :roll:

Asserting it is fine, but can you explain how a person operating under the authority of Rosenstein/Sessions, who the statute grants the authority to oversee, limit, and/or terminate the Mueller investigation, allows Mueller to be "de facto" AG? That can only be true if some force or barrier exists such that Rosenstein/Sessions are unable to exercise their oversight responsibilities granted to them by the statute such that Mueller is effectively acting without restraint or fear of restraint.

Reproduce both complete definitions here.
Click to expand...

You've got to be joking... :laughat:
 
bubbabgone said:
No joke. You said you knew. Guess you don't. That's okay.
Click to expand...

If you can't defend your poorly reasoned position just say so. My response clearly indicates I understand what 'de facto' means.

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.

You're arguing he 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 without restraint from the de jure AG. Explain what that force or barrier might be.
 
bubbabgone said:
...


https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/con...ns-dismiss-robert-mueller-non-campaign-cases/

I get his point, but I'm sure the argument is that dissecting business arrangements with Russia way back when can shed light on contemporary election practices and perhaps demonstrate motivational links.

But then there's ...



hmmmmmm
Click to expand...

Sessions formally notifying Mueller that he does not have authority to act outside of campaign-related cases and cases related to obstruction of Mueller’s investigation would be doing what the Constitution compels: enforcing the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

The party that wants to hunt down illegals that have been here doing good work for 20 years and deport their entire family, but want to let ****ing Manafort off because of a political narrative? What kind of person are you exactly? It's a word almost like Adorable.

Besides, Republican have to keep up their trend of criminals caught in action.

View attachment 67230820
Click to expand...

All that graph tells me is that a democrat ruled White House is much less likely to prosecute their own, than a republican one.

Make no. Is take, they.....are....all....criminals.
 
bubbabgone said:
...if it could be interpreted so broadly, it would make Mueller a de facto Attorney General of the United States...
Click to expand...

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.
 
JasperL said:
If you can't defend your poorly reasoned position just say so. My response clearly indicates I understand what 'de facto' means.

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.

You're arguing he 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 without restraint from the de jure AG. Explain what that force or barrier might be.
Click to expand...

The writer argued that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom