Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39717
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 1 minute ago, VirginiaLonghorn said:

    More suspect fundamentals .. this time from Ellis overthrowing the cutoff man. 

    I'm willing to call that a physical mistake.  Ellis is fast, but a little goofy in the field.

  2. 1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

    I understand, and it very well may be how it plays out.  My ultimate concern is the withholding of evidence that could lead to impeachment and conviction if it exists.  

    To the extent that, as you say "I don't doubt that, if the evidence supports it, he will plainly state that there is probable cause to believe the President committed the offenses of ______________________________________, with greater detail than any indictment and further explain that he declined to indict and prosecute based on 24 Op. O.L.C. 222," leads to a full accounting of that evidence in a report to Congress at termination, I have no issues.  If by Mueller NOT indicting POTUS, it leads to the evidence getting buried at DOJ and not finding its way to Congress, then I would hope he indicts and lets those "above his pay grade" sort it out.

    I'm not saying he's not going to say what he knows/believes/the evidence shows, I just say he's not going to file a piece of paper in the US District Court with Trump's name on it.  I think the level of detail in the report could be far more damaging than the contents of an indictment, short of the legal effect, and provided anyone reads it.

    Nothing I say about indictments pertain to anything but an actual indictment.  I don't believe Mueller will withhold any evidence or pull any punches.  He is foreclosed by policy from indicting the President, so he won't. 

  3. 3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Again, the person to watch is Rod Rosenstein.

    According to earlier reporting, today was supposed to be his last day.

    Clearly, it wasn’t.

    Because Barr is not recused, does Rosenstein still retain his role over Mueller?  I don't recall reading anything about that.

  4. 7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

    On one hand company man, on the other, Marine.  

    If there is evidence Trump has committed and continues to commit multiple serious crimes against the United States, I don't think Mueller withholds indictment of POTUS.  It's his conclusion to make, but not his outcome to determine.  It's his veritable duty to indict POTUS if the evidence supports it.

    By the same token, he was a mere Captain in the Corps and quite familiar, I'm sure, with following all lawful orders.  He can disagree with the policy yet still feel compelled to obey it, because it is a lawful order, perhaps about which reasonable minds could disagree, but lawful nonetheless and "above his paygrade."

    I consider Marines, especially lower grade officers and enlisted, to be the ultimate company men.

  5. Spitballing a little further, the regs quoted above would seem to require removal of Mueller if he voilated DOJ policy, which would trigger an immediate duty to report that to Congress.  Thus, if he indicted, he would probably be removed and Congress informed immediately.  To what end or effect, I am not sure.

    • Like 1
  6. Also, note an article at LawFare by Walter Dellinger, Clinton's Solicitor General.  https://www.lawfareblog.com/indicting-president-not-foreclosed-complex-history The article is a bit disingenuous in that it places two OLC opinions on equal footing with Rotunda's opinion and two advocacy documents (a court brief and an internal memo of the Jaworksi special counsel team).  The OLC documents are the only ones that pretend to reflect official policy.  The others are just, like, opinions, man and the dubious applicablity of the Rotuna opinion has been explained.  It appears that Rotunda himself admitted that without an Independent Counsel statute similar to the one he analyzed, his opinion is n/a.

    There seem to be two ways to get the issue before the Supreme Court.  One is to actually indict the President, which doesn't look like it's happening anytime soon.  The other would be for Congress to specifically authorize indictment of the President.  That would overrule the policy of the DOJ, but might still require indicting the President to create standing to challenge the statute and the practice itself.

     

    • Like 1
  7. Perhaps some of the quoted article comes from this, which both aids and undermines the argument:

    Quote

     

    § 600.7 Conduct and accountability.

    (a) A Special Counsel shall comply with the rules, regulations, procedures, practices and policies of the Department of Justice. He or she shall consult with appropriate offices within the Department for guidance with respect to established practices, policies and procedures of the Department, including ethics and security regulations and procedures. Should the Special Counsel conclude that the extraordinary circumstances of any particular decision would render compliance with required review and approval procedures by the designated Departmental component inappropriate, he or she may consult directly with the Attorney General.

    (b) The Special Counsel shall not be subject to the day-to-day supervision of any official of the Department. However, the Attorney General may request that the Special Counsel provide an explanation for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and may after review conclude that the action is so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued. In conducting that review, the Attorney General will give great weight to the views of the Special Counsel. If the Attorney General concludes that a proposed action by a Special Counsel should not be pursued, the Attorney General shall notify Congress as specified in § 600.9(a)(3).

    (c) The Special Counsel and staff shall be subject to disciplinary action for misconduct and breach of ethical duties under the same standards and to the same extent as are other employees of the Department of Justice. Inquiries into such matters shall be handled through the appropriate office of the Department upon the approval of the Attorney General.

    (d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

     

    That does seem to indicate that the AG has an obligation to report to Congress actions overruled, but it uses the section quoted above, which indicates that that obligation arises only at the conclusion of the investigation.

  8. It's not correct.

    Quote

     

    § 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

    (a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action -

    (1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

    (2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

    (3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

    (b) The notification requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section may be tolled by the Attorney General upon a finding that legitimate investigative or privacy concerns require confidentiality. At such time as confidentiality is no longer needed, the notification will be provided.

    (c) The Attorney General may determine that public release of these reports would be in the public interest, to the extent that release would comply with applicable legal restrictions. All other releases of information by any Department of Justice employee, including the Special Counsel and staff, concerning matters handled by Special Counsels shall be governed by the generally applicable Departmental guidelines concerning public comment with respect to any criminal investigation, and relevant law.

     

    It says the report, or the report to Congress, made by the AG, shall include instances where the AG overruled the Special Counsel.

    For all that, yes, I think Mueller could indict Trump, disobeying the policy, which might trigger his termination as Special Counsel, but not the termination of the investigation.  But I also think he's too much of a company man to do that.  I don't doubt that, if the evidence supports it, he will plainly state that there is probable cause to believe the President committed the offenses of ______________________________________, with greater detail than any indictment and further explain that he declined to indict and prosecute based on 24 Op. O.L.C. 222.

×
×
  • Create New...