Rosenstein
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
item 2 in particular:
That gives him a lot of leeway in what he does
People keep saying this but that only displays their blatant ignorance of the law. The core mandate that Mueller was given was to investigate violations of the law related to Russian interference with the US election, and the possible involvement of US citizens and politicians. The crimes in issue include violation of election laws, disclosure laws, contribution laws, and at least theoretically could involve treason if consideration contrary to American interests was given to foreign powers. And, (this is a big AND) another crime potentially involved is conspiracy to do any or all of the above. (What people think of as “collusion” would legally be “conspiracy” which has a specific legal definition of an agreement to perform illegal acts plus at least one “overt act” to further the conspiracy. Collusion is a lay term; the legal term is conspiracy.)
If, during the investigation into these potential crimes, Mueller finds evidence of contact between the Trump campaign and Russian interests (which he has) then it’s 100% totally legally germane to inquire into the nature of those contacts. One of the key questions for a conspiracy investigation will be whether there was an agreement to perform acts violating the law. Because the question of agreement/conspiracy is so profound, Mueller must look at both contacts between Russia and the Trump campaign and also at relationships between Russia and the Trump campaign. If there is evidence that there was a relationship involving financial crimes between Russian interests and people associated with the Trump campaign (which there is) then looking at the finances of the entire campaign is 100% relevant. It is IN NO WAY beyond the mandate for Mueller to look into financial crimes prior to the campaign, provided there is reasonable suspicion of a prior relationships (there is), prior criminal acts (there is), and/or an agreement to commit crimes (they are investigating this now.)
It’s fairly simple:
1)there is strong evidence that there was contact between people in the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian hackers committed a number of federal crimes involving hacking, fraudulent emails, and potentially “in kind” campaign contributions (dirt on Hilary would be “in kind” consideration.) This then gives rise to the question as to whether the Trump campaign conspired with Russian interests to violate the law.
2)During the investigation, they will look at the contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia. If there is evidence of prior relationships, prior financial arrangements, or prior financial crimes involving Trump associates and Russian interests (we have all 3) then the investigation must look into those relationships and financial records.
In what way is Mueller exceeding his mandate to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election, given the legal reality of a potential conspiracy charge?
Note: I want to add that although people are correct in pointing out that Mueller can investigate other crimes than the election violation as a part of his mandate, the investigation into prior financial crimes is still relevant to the core mandate of investigating the 2016 election. So Mueller is not exceeding even his core mandate, and the investigate discretion provided by Rosenberg’s instructions give Mueller even more room. Now, if Mueller were to start investigating sex allegations against Trump not related to Russian or finances or campaigning, then we would have an investigation that went too far.
Also, Yakattack, unless you can show me that you were vehemently opposed to what Ken Starr did to Clinton in the 90s, then shut the F up.
I’m basing my comments on what Michael Mukasey said, here:
Now, here, the letter that appointed Robert Mueller from Rod Rosenstein said that he was to pursue the investigation that was testified to by James Comey when he testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee, and that he was to investigate — that this included — quote — “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”
Well, the investigation that was testified to by James Comey wasn’t a criminal investigation. It was a national security investigation. And links or coordination may sound sinister, but it doesn’t define or suggest the existence of a crime.
I don’t remember the 90s that well, so I can’t really comment on any specifics wrt Ken Starr. Presumably, it was mostly nonsense, as with the many efforts to “lock up” Hillary.
Yes, my point was the mandate given by Rosenstein itself may have been too broad (legally), not that Mueller is necessarily exceeding this mandate.
My main worry is that the Dems are over-eager, and all these guys may end up getting acquitted. (If that’s possible.)
How exactly would you have reduced its scope?
Dunno. The proper thing to do might have been to focus on evidence of specific crimes before the start of the investigation, not on whatever crimes may or may not be uncovered at a later time during or as a result of the investigation (e.g. after the fact).
I’m sure a lot of crimes, everywhere, could be uncovered if investigators were given broad enough leeway to investigate whatever they wanted, with no (prior) evidence that a crime has occurred.
If this is in fact the case, then a lot of people might get let off based on technicalities.
So you believe we should not have prosecuted Al Capone for tax evasion and simply allowed him to continue running the mob?
You can’t swing a dead cat in the White House without striking a criminal.
I found this enjoyable in a morbid sort of way.
Really? Would they find evidence of criminal activity from you if they investigated you? I am going to guess that the vast majority of us are guilty of nothing more than common traffic violations. Mueller is not going to discover Donnie Jr. rolled through a stop sign and charge him.
If a crime occurred, why look the other way?
Maybe he means that lots of crimes could be uncovered if investigators had leeway to investigate important people. You know what I mean. The guys not bound by rule of law.
References this book, also morbidly engaging:
“Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality? To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes. Tracing the global history of inequality from the Stone Age to today, Walter Scheidel shows that inequality never dies peacefully. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return. The Great Leveler is the first book to chart the crucial role of violent shocks in reducing inequality over the full sweep of human history around the world.”
Well, when the black plague and the French Revolution happened, voting wasn’t really a thing. So maybe we can fix things without a massive die-off.
Maybe, but that involves people paying attention and getting rid of bad politicians. And all Republican ones.
So I wouldn’t hold my breath.
We just saw this happen, from a state I thought was filled with more people not paying attention than average.
Well, I don’t think the Reps are the only ones who are less innocent than they claim.
I agree. But that doesn’t mean look away because both sides may be guilty. It means we need more investigation, not less. It shouldn’t take claims of Russian interference in our electoral process to police our politics.
And it’s not as if Hillary wasn’t investigated over and over. Congress wasn’t shy about it. Some might say they overdid it, considering all that was discovered.
Using taxpayer dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency has hired a cutting-edge Republican PR firm that specializes in digging up opposition research to help Administrator Scott Pruitt’s office track and shape press coverage of the agency.
According to federal contracting records, earlier this month Pruitt’s office inked a no-bid $120,000 contract with Definers Corp., a Virginia-based public relations firm founded by Matt Rhoades, who managed Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign. Following Romney’s defeat, Rhoades established America Rising, an ostensibly independent political action committee that works closely with the Republican National Committee and Republican candidates to mine damning information on opponents. Other higher-ups at Definers include former RNC research director Joe Pounder, who’s been described as “a master of opposition research,” and senior vice president Colin Reed, an oppo-research guru billed as “among the leaders of the war on [Sen. Elizabeth] Warren.”
The forbidden words are “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”
Though my liberal inclinations bristle somewhat at those other words being outright banned, the “evidence-based” and “science-based” part of the list has to be the most flagrant and disturbing for me. Some of the existing ideological restrictions on the CDC were bad enough, but this really crosses a line. This could be very bad for society and public health, for example given Trump’s sympathies towards anti-vaxxers. I hope the scientists of the CDC can hold out.
I hope this kind of thing doesn’t start happening to other agencies which provide broader basic research funding.