Filing: Rosenstein Expanded Mueller’s Mandate in 2016

Rod_Rosenstein_US_AttorneyThere is an interesting disclosure in the filing this week by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last August expanded the mandate for Mueller in allowing him to pursue collusion allegations against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort as well as criminal conduct linked to his controversial dealings with Ukraine.  The expansion shows not only the close supervision by Rosenstein but the care taken by Mueller not to exceed his mandate, which was already quite broad.  The disclosure comes in the week with the first scheduled sentencing of a Mueller defendant.  Warning: the story below contains foul language.

The disclosure came after Manafort challenged Mueller’s authority to pursue the criminal allegations against him — allegations wholly removed from both the election and Trump.  The memo by Rosenstein allowed Mueller to investigate allegations that Manafort ‘‘committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials’’ to interfere with the presidential election. It also specifically authorized Mueller to investigate any crimes linked to payments Manafort received from the Ukrainian government during the tenure of former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

 

We have still not seen any charges connected to collusion allegations on the campaign though this week it was disclosed that Mueller is investigating the close Trump adviser Roger Stone’s alleged ties to the head of Wikileaks, which released many of the Clinton emails.

Stone and his former aide Sam Nunberg have been grabbing headlines with increasingly bizarre statements.  Recently, Stone denounced Nunberg as a “lying ashole” and “psycho” and “coke head.”

It is a bad combination to watch former advisers falling out while Mueller steadily plows ahead with expanded powers.  Nevertheless, the memo shows both Mueller and Rosenstein playing by the book as they delve into these various allegations.

Here is the order expanding the mandate: Rosenstein Order

 

231 thoughts on “Filing: Rosenstein Expanded Mueller’s Mandate in 2016”

  1. Censor much? I wrote a post about the insulting and sometimes profane words that have entered our national discourse, thanks to Trump, many of which are listed above, and my comments were stricken.

    How ironic for someone who holds himself out as a champion of freedom of speech to publish such words, even when they are attributed to someone else, but forbid others to do so. If it’s not overboard for your President and his cronies to use such language, then why is it wrong for me to repeat the words, especially in the context of pointing out just how divisive, crude and unprofessional things have become under Trump. Just another sign of his lack of fitness for office.

    1. Turley hasn’t addressed Sinclair Broadcasting’s mandated on air propaganda by its anchors at 66 stations.

      1. That’s because ‘mandated on air propaganda’ does not exist outside the lump of gorgonzola in your skull.

    2. The last thing I’m inclined to do is side with YOU, but as it happens a fairly large number of posts appear to have disappeared this afternoon — and they didn’t have content such as you describe, so perhaps your deduction as to why your post disappeared is off the mark.

    3. Freedom of the press is held by those who own one, Nutchacha. JT / DS aren’t under any obligation to post your latest rant.

      especially in the context of pointing out just how divisive, crude and unprofessional things have become under Trump.

      When you look in the mirror, just who do you see?

  2. Again I am sending you all as reminder so your goodselves a head in Interests of out great NATION. Thanks with regards. Shahabuddin Bhojani. URGENT

    1. There isn’t enough land mass on Earth to plant that many trees.

  3. What a joke “playing by the book”. You are a disgrace turley. Even a person as myself without a formal education and only armed with street smarts can see that nothing being done by lawyers or politians is anything that is remotely by the book. We the American people, you know the commoners, are sick of you and the double speak that comes out of politians and lawyers. We need hard working commoners to take back our government and straighten it out. You people have it so f’ed up. Further more you have our educational system a reck as well. I’m not one to make treats to anyone but if leaders don’t start speaking truth you’re finished. Look around go to Baltimore, LA, Chicago things are getting worse and you have helped and contributed to the problem with your lies. Stand for something or fall for anything.

    1. “Further more you have our educational system a reck as well”

      Obviously.

      Cordially, Bill

    2. I would be curious to hear your agenda for “taking back our government and straightening it out.” What sort of straightening would you have in mind? Should only people lacking in education be involved? Government of the ignorant, by the ignorant, and for the ignorant?

      1. You’re not really interested, but I’ll answer anyway. The following problems have to be addressed:

        1. The grossly escessive place the bar (and particularly the judiciary) occupy in the determination of public policy.

        2. The. hypertrophy of higher education and of its role in sorting the labor market, as well as the escalating quanta of humbug incorporated within it and the wretched means of financing it.

        3. The continued reliance on public agency as a means for delivering primary and secondary schooling, the witless teacher certification system associated with it, the preference for half-assed liberal education at the secondary level in lieu of vocational schooling and focused academics, and disasters and idiocies in school discipline.

        4. The dysfunctions in recruitment, promotion, and employee discipline in the civil service, not to mention compensation schemes.

        5. Understaffing and inefficient deployment in inner city law enforcement, the intrusion of social work into the operation of the penal courts, and the tolerance for gross inefficiency on the part of the courts generally.

        6. The escalating interference of the bar in the operation of other sectors of the economy, attended to which is the phenomena of companies being run by their compliance people. One discrete measure which can greatly reduce this would be the comprehensive repeal of anti-discrimination law.

        7. Dysfunctions in the constitution and finance of local government which leave such governments mired in a stew of regulation and leave voters confused as to who is responsible for what policy. The effectiveness of local government also suffers from excessive fragmentation and poor boundary determination.

        8 A bad electoral system which relies on first-past-the-post and gerrymandered constituencies, features a badly jumbled electoral calendar and includes a mess of specialized elected offices for reasons no one can recall why or explain why. It also labors under a mess of court decrees which exacerbate some important problems.

        9. Poor institutional construction which feature bicameralism and the executive veto in virtually every supralocal jurisdiction. It’s killing us at the federal level.

        10. The use of tax policy to sluice income to favored economic sectors

        11. Immigratoin, immigration, immigration, which amounts to the Democratic Party and its clients importing foreigners to build an electoral base and reduce the influence of social sectors they despise.

        12. Escalating transfer of discretion to the central government (conjoined to its transfer to the appellate judiciary).

        13. The incapacity of the central government to balance its books and of most of the state and local governments to maintain actuarially-sound retirement programs for the military and civil service.

        14. The maintenance of a class of career politicians in loci like Washington and Albany, conjoined to which are lobbyists and career political staff.

      2. You are clever. You must be a supporter of Obummer. Put up straw man to make your argument. How about downsizing the government and we just get back to the constitution. I believe the ignorant could do a much better job than the double speak crooks we live with now. We will not have a choice in the near future when our standard of living becomes that of a third world country. If can’t make a decent argument then don’t respond.

  4. It’s amazing that this is a legal blog, and the title of this piece is “Filing: Rosenstein Expanded Mueller’s Mandate in 2016” — which is clearly a reference to 28 CFR § 600.4(b) “Additional jurisdiction” — yet I could find no reference in the piece to that legal authority, nor any reference to 28 CFR § 600.4(a) “Original jurisdiction” which has been absent since Mueller was appointed special counsel.

    There’s lots of ordinary gossip and speculation and opinion in this piece, but anyone looking for actual legal analysis concerning the actual LAW will be disappointed.

    1. Professor Turley has a perhaps misplaced expectation that readers will either pay attention or, if coming in new to an ongoing series of related posts, will do their homework by looking back over past articles to find assertions clearly addressed to the entire series, the investigation in this case including expansions thereof. The Search function comes to mind. Granted, it would take 30 seconds at least, and for some big egos that normally bully their assistants for such research, it could be considered a demeaning, never mind exhausting, effort.

      […]For over a year, some of us have been questioning the weekly “bombshells” announced on cable programs of criminal Russian collusion. Indeed, for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment if such a related charge is made. With each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign.[…]

      – Jonathan Turley

      Don’t ask. Find it (and related info) or bellow as is your wont.

      To say you are in violent agreement with Turley would utterly miss the point. Which is, that you seem to be here to preen and then puff up your feathers in righteous indignation and most of all to preach to the choir (a nice change after the captive audience in your day job? – perhaps the aspect most attracting you to your profession). The investigation and its legitimacy seem a bit of a second.

      Alas, one can be nasty, bullying and make good points; they are not mutually exclusive.
      And on a related point, It would hardly be surprising that a Professor spare his own views, especially already repeated information, for the express purpose of generating discussion from the comentariat nor would it surprise me if he welcomed your offerings, such as they are, without worrying too much about your self preening or your remarks on him (which as always say more about you than anyone else).

      1. “. . . you seem to be here to preen and then puff up your feathers in righteous indignation and most of all to preach to the choir. . .”

        How true, another who thinks the torch has been handed.

      2. There are a few very odd things about your “comment”:

        (1) It’s not actually the independent comment that it appears to be. Rather, as we both know, you posted this “comment” as a reply to me. And as it happens, your “comment” was a reply to my reply to someone that had replied to my comment immediately preceding your “comment.”

        The page has been rearranged after a number of comments and/or replies have been deleted. That’s a fact, though other readers would never guess that from looking at the page, and none of them know the actual content of mine that you’re replying to with your “comment” (hereafter referred to as your comment/reply).

        (2) The degree of irrelevancy in your comment/reply is quite high, and mostly exists entirely in your own mind as a matter of your own distorted opinion. And I’m referring to your nonsense about “nasty,” “bullying,” “preen and then puff up your feathers,” etc. — which I’m am throwing back in your cowardly face that hides behind a fake screen name because — and this is a FACT, not an opinion — you do not dare associated your published words with your true identity.

        So you can hurl your insults and ad hominem at me and they land on my true identity, but if I hurl them back at you, they land in the land of anonymity, where you and your ilk cower in fear and shame.

        (3) The content you cite regarding Turley’s prior statements is NOT in the slightest bit in agreement with me, and I cant imagine how a literate person would interpret it the way you do.

        (a) JT’s reference to “the weekly ‘bombshells’ announced on cable programs” appears to be a reference
        to dopey cable-TV “news” programs, none of which interest me and are NOT the subject of my comment.

        (b) JT’s reference — “for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code or the criminal evidence to support a criminal indictment” — is NOT relevant to the issue(s) of my comment, because my issue, in this and other comments or replies on this and other pages, is that there’s no legal authority for the appointment of a special counsel OR an investigation by a special counsel.

        Perhaps you don’t comprehend the difference, but it’s quite large — because Mueller, acting at the behest of others (Hillary and her gang) is using the investigation to inflict punishment. It matters not whether an indictment is forthcoming (although that would put Mueller’s crimes into a higher category of sedition), because the punishment is being unlawfully inflicted WITHOUT any indictment. This is what Mueller does. If you doubt me, there are any number of articles available on the web that can describe for you what Mueller did with the anthrax investigations in the wake of 9/11. This is how Mueller has operated in the past, and it’s how he’s operating in the present.

        So JT’s alleged concern about there not being a crime that would or could lead to indictment is NOT RELEVANT. What IS relevant is that Mueller has no proper legal authority to conduct his investigation OR use it to inflict punishment — aka extrajudicial punishment. The expression at tort law for what Mueller is doing is Abuse of Process.

        And, as it happens, Mueller IS indicting people without proper legal authority to even investigate them.
        AND Mueller is using his investigation — his team of democrats — to conduct the ultimate research for the democrat party against Trump, which they will use in future campaigns.

        There are a host of things going on here that JT’s statement as quoted by you do not address — as if those things are not happening, when any reasonably-intelligent person KNOWS that those things are happening.

        (c) JT’s statement, “each week, experts have given breathless accounts of the circle of collusion tightening on the Trump campaign,” is, again, an apparent reference to the cable-TV “news” nitwits concerning which I have ZERO interest, except that I’m aware of their existence and that they are 99% rabble rousing which essentially dumbs down the population instead of seeking to INFORM the population and raise the level of discourse to something approaching adult.

        (4) You suggest that I don’t now how to search for information, and specifically (as I gather) am not familiar with JT’s previously-published opinions. I’m certainly not familiar with all of them, but I’m familiar with many of them — the one you cited, for instance, being an opinion of his with which I’m quite familiar as a theme of his (though I might not have read that particular one in those words.

        So you’re really just attacking me on this without any basis — and I mean NONE.

        (5) A person can get the politics statements of opinion referenced in JT’s recent articles — and I’m talking about THIS subject (the Russia “investigation” nonsense) — almost anywhere. People on the comment pages express these opinions. “Journalists” express these opinions. God-forsaken cable-TV pundit express these opinions — but what’s missing is a simple, rational explanation of the LAW.

        Turley CAN do that. I’ve heard him do it, and I’ve read him do it — but he’s NOT doing it here. I’m having to do it in the comment section — and I’m not even a lawyer.

        Summary: Turley has a wonderful opportunity to inform the public — provide the public information that others are not providing to the public — and instead, as in this article, he’s providing the public the sort of thing they can get almost anywhere.

        I’m NOT here because I WANT to be here — or because I have any desire to “preen” or “bully.” I’m just trying to do my civic duty — same as I did spending many years in court — spending my own money in court — trying to make things better — trying to get people to understand what’s going on and what’s gone wrong and how it can be fixed.

        And when I bend the “civility rules” it’s only when people bend them first, or when they waste my time with their NONSENSE. I have no problem when people disagree with me — but I DO have a problem with people wasting my time with NONSENSE.

        And by the way, your comment/reply is NONSENSE>

        1. And by the way, your comment/reply is NONSENSE>

          Well then, thank you for such a lengthy detailed reply. That you protest far too much may be trite, but I suspect there is actually something to it. I can only imagine the gale of response you would have generated if I had made sense.

          While you may be saving the earth, you are still preening and preaching to the choir for there are many other ways to proselytize or enlighten. That you have chosen the elbow in people’s face is telling. It’s not enlightening, period. And you are in everyone’s face who questions you in the least. You are no doubt aware of that when in your reply to me you retreat to the much more sympathetic stance, “Turley has a wonderful opportunity to inform the public.” That is hardly the tone you use on Turley or anyone else in this thread who dares to question you.

          On the core issue, your point that Meuller’s investigation has no authority, it can be argued that is precisely what Turley is getting at when he says, “for months I asked for someone to point to a crime of collusion in the criminal code…” It is the same point you make when you say, “Collusion” is not a criminal matter, and is nowhere identified in the criminal code…” -your words I’m not sure why you would have paralleled Turley’s point so closely, other than to buttress the same conclusion; that the absence of collusion in the criminal code MEANS lack of authority.

          But perhaps I am wrong and Professor Turley does not agree with you. The fact that he never (in the recent past at least) joins comments means you are free to make any accusations you want – in the tone you want – without fear of being challenged which seems to be more your style than the (crocodile) tears for Turley’s “lost opportunity to inform the public.”

        2. To William Bayer:

          Just to be clear, your words are in quotes, mine are not and this post in in response to your reply to Brooklin Bridge.

          “It’s not actually the independent comment that it appears to be. Rather, as we both know, you posted this “comment” as a reply to me. And as it happens, your “comment” was a reply to my reply to someone that had replied to my comment immediately preceding your ‘comment.’”

          That’s the way it works, William.

          “The page has been rearranged after a number of comments and/or replies have been deleted.”

          Talk to Darren Smith about deleted comments and the way he sorts the timeline. It is confusing at times, but Darren is a top notch moderator, so I’m sure he will grant your wishes.

          “That’s a fact, though other readers would never guess that from looking at the page, and none of them know the actual content of mine that you’re replying to with your “comment” (hereafter referred to as your comment/reply).”

          Actually, this one is easy as Brooklin Bridge’s reply is directly below yours and indented; and nothing was deleted from this eddy — yet.

          You need to buck up, William, and realize that few care for your tantrums and that it is better to convince.

        3. By the way, for what it’s worth, I don’t know how your browser displays to you my original comment to you, but my browser shows it to me as nested (indented) directly under yours.

          Also, a small point, but the penultimate sentence in my second comment should have been, “But perhaps I am wrong and Professor Turley does not agree with you or perhaps he does but doesn’t want to delve into it.

        4. Haha. More blather and tomfoolery which seeps into paranoia. Not that it matters one whit to a dedicated patriot, decorated war hero and tireless public servant like Mr. Mueller, but he is a Republican, who was appointed by a Republican.

          this is to “I love to roll around in the echo chamber all day long” willie

          1. Like Mueller Gen. Benedict Arnold used to not be a Traitor, but you wish to to stay loyal to Traitors to the USA even after having been warned, well it sounds like at some point soon you’ll have trouble showing your face in public or online by a massive amount of US citizens is my guess.

    2. Maybe you should go to law school. I’m sure you’ll find the discussion you pine for there; if you could keep up and not yell during debates, which I suspect is a tall order.

      1. Law school — both the subject matter and the people I’d have to associate with there — would be like going back to kindergarten after the subjects I’ve studied and the people I was privileged to associate with. And I also got my fill of being around lawyers while spending many years in court. That I could take my own cases to the court of appeals and WIN, with ZERO training in law, tells me all I need to know about how intelligent lawyers are. I didn’t win because I’m smart. I won because lawyers are so stupid — including the judges whose judgments got reversed.
        Send a lawyer to do some engineering no training in engineering — or send a lawyer to do some architecture with no training in architecture. Try to imagine the disasters that would happen. And yet a guy from engineering school and architecture school can be forced into court and win.
        You figure it out.
        If I had a hundred lifetimes, I wouldn’t waste a single minute of a single one of them in law school.
        A person doesn’t need to go to school to learn something that the can learn without going to school.
        And you have no reason to suggest that I’d have a problem not yelling in debates. In all of those years in court, a judge never once had to ask or instruct me about my behavior. Even the judge that got thrown off the bench by the state supreme court after I had the court of appeals reverse his judgment had no problem with my behavior.
        And you’re really an obnoxious comment poster. See how I can behave myself? That’s not what I’d choose to say to you.
        You’re the kind of person that baits people. That’s what you’re doing here. And if there were actual RULES regarding this comment section — actual rules, not fake rules — you’d be tossed in two seconds.
        Phone civility is the worst.

        Troll yourself into the parallel universe, troll — and say hi to Queen Pope Hillary for me when you get there.

          1. But he’s convinced himself, and that is all that matters to him. I bet he never lies and is always right.

        1. Your diatribe begs the question: why did you spend so much time in court?

        2. Methinks the blather fails to conceal the envy that willie bears for we respected members of the bar.

          this is to “and I can prolly do brain surgery too” willie

  5. PAUL MANAFORT figures large in this piece from today’s New York Times.

    A young, Russian woman whose background is that of a Sex Worker was aboard the yacht of a Russian aluminum magnate in the summer of 2016. There she overheard intriguing conversations between her host and unnamed Americans. Then last year this woman was arrested in Thailand for conducting sex seminars described as ‘tame’ by Thai standards. She currently languishes in a Thai jail facing a very uncertain future.

    The woman claims she has audio tapes that could shed light on the Russia probe. Interestingly the aluminum magnate on whose yacht she was aboard is a creditor to Paul Manafort. According to this article, Manafort owes ‘millions’ to said aluminum magnate. VERY INTRIGUING!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/world/asia/nastya-russia-trump-election.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

  6. FBI Most Wanted List
    __________________

    Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Rosenstein, Kadzic, Yates, Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr,

    Mueller, Steele, Simpson, Hillary, Huma, Lynch, Clapper, Power, Farkas, Rice, Obama…

    et al.

    ******************************************************************************************************

    Public Enemy Number One
    ______________________

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein

  7. Oh Respected JONATHAN TURLEY: Is your kind goodself very well awares some little about what’s goingon our own country’s soil? I am sure your goodself absolutely knows “NOTHING” but on other hands sleeping in FOOL’S PARADISE & not only your goodself but entire COUNTRY’S LEADERSHIP too sleeping in FOOL’S PARADISE. OH my Fellow American brother JONATHAN TURLEY I like to show with good aims and objectives the other side of MIRROR ESPECIALLY OUR COUNTRY’S TOP COURT OF LAW means I like truly and firmly to brief the Hon’ble U. S. SUPREME COURT submitting solid AMAZING & FANTASTIC INFORMATION/EVIDENCE as Prima Facie ones SO it’s go a head for taking a “SUO MOTO” notice in interest of ENTIRE NATION. For this Can you assist me favouring me necessary guidance as a very helpful SO ENTIRE NATION not only can see BY IT’S OWN EYES but also on other hands truly and “undoubtedly” repeat “undoubtedly” be SHOCKED & SURPRISED when AMAZING & TOP MOST MATTERS BE EXPOSED IN Hon’ble “SUPREME COURT” by this LAYMAN. Yes it’s Supreme Court’s MORAL and firm obligation to pay me 10% REWARDS on total amounts poured in Federal ‘S & ALl STATES’ TREASURIES with free of Income Tax. Oh Yes I will CREATE A FOUNDATION beneficial those families whose loved ones died and injured in both Iraqi & Afghan wars as well as also beneficial to ENTIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITIES. This LAYMAN keeps 1% for myself and members of my family. GOD BLESS AMERICA. Thanking you in advance with warm regards. Shahabuddin A. Bhojani. My new Address: 10888 HUNTINGTON ESTATES DRIVE, Apt # 4111, HOUSTON. Texas 77099-3640. My Cell # is 281-813-3553. . P.S. Please treat my email message as Strictly Private and Confidential and no my name be disclosed by News Media’s to whom I am endorsing my this Email Message. God Bless News Media’s.

    1. Oh my gosh, maybe better if you make brief reply and then get off stage (or soap box in your case).

    2. Hello Shah & welcome,

      Bishop TD Jakes says trust God in the fire. Trust him in the fire. Never advertise your location, email or phone number!

  8. If Muler now looking into actions of playful provocateur Stone who “operates” in plain public view, then this is a sign that the Russia investigation has jumped the shark.

    1. Actually, hiring 14 lawyers and managing at random to recruit four who were 4-digit contributors to Democratic causes was the shark jump.

      1. Mueller hires da best regardless of party. If ya want da best tax expert he gets em. T rump hire crap lawyers and he lies to em and they quit. One of da best is Ted Olson and he said no way.

        1. I see David you’re in your drooling retard character, but thinking no more clearly. Only a tiny minority of the adult population are 4-digit political donors, so, no it isn’t credible that 30% of your team consists of them if you’ve engaged in merit hiring rather than in network hiring.

          1. “4-digit contributors“, only a small part of the populace donate so what is your point other than to smear people since you do not have ant actual evidence of wrong doing.

        2. And, prospective Trump lawyers are rumored to assume that they won’t get paid. Michael Cohen should be asked why he was complaining about a missing check. He knew his client. (The ranking of his law school-OMG.) A brush-up on the topic of parties to a contract would have been helpful given the women that the President didn’t want talking.

  9. Regulatory Authorities:

    28 CFR § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

    “The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted ***”

    Key phase: “criminal investigation of a person or matter”

    28 CFR § 600.4 Jurisdiction.

    “(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.

    (b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere. ***”

    Key phase: “Original jurisdiction. *** The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”

    FACT: In the context of the Grounds for appointing a special counsel, which are to conduct a CRIMINAL investigation, the publicized statement of “original jurisdiction” issued by Rosenstein when appointing Mueller (not to be confused with this new information that Rosenstein has subsequently issued secret instructions related to “additional jurisdiction”) contains NO “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated, as REQUIRED.

    There is no specific statement of any CRIMINAL matter that Mueller was assigned to investigate.
    “Collusion” is not a criminal matter, and is nowhere identified in the criminal code, and Rosenstein issued NO “specific factual statement” identifying any criminal matter to be investigated as a matter of “original jurisdiction.”

    This conduct by Rosenstein and Mueller, in launching a special counsel investigation without identifying a specific criminal matter that needs investigation as a matter of “original jurisdiction,” constitutes a gross violation of the authority established by the special counsel regulations.

    Neither Rosenstein nor Mueller are authorized to ignore or violate the mandatory requirements of 28 CFR § 600.1 and/or 28 CFR § 600.4

    1. I read the original Rosenstein Memo authorizing the Mueller investigation. The subject is Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election. There was probable cause evidence of Russian interference at the time. It doesn’t matter if this involved criminal vs. counter-intelligence, only that if US laws were broken by the perpetrators, Mueller and the Grand Jury could indict. The 13 Russians who were indicted on fraud resulted.

      The question of Trump campaign involvement in Russian ops is a completely separate investigatory vein. There was not any probable cause evidence, only swirls of suspicion fed by Democrats and media. A sub-investigation was authorized, maybe outside 4th Amendment constraints on the need for probable cause evidence. Let’s be honest. The DoJ and FBI were not prepared for how to handle a “Manchurian candidate” scenario without violating Constitutional constraints should it turn out to be political oppo-branding.

      1. “The subject is Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential election.”

        That’s a matter of counterintelligence. It’s NOT a criminal matter — and Comey testified under oath that it was a counterintelligence investigation. Nothing changed when the investigation was transferred to Mueller. And the regulation I quoted regarding Grounds for appointing a special counsel restricts the appointment of a special counsel to CRIMINAL investigation.

        It’s really just that simple. The FBI had all the authority it needed to conduct a counterintelligence investigation. It didn’t have the authority to mislead the FISC (FISA Court). And there was no legal authority to appoint a special counsel.

        And in unlawfully appointing a special counsel, Rosenstein failed to establish “original jurisdiction” by failing to provide the special counsel with a “specific factual statement of the [criminal] matter to be investigated.

        It’s not complicated. It’s not even remotely complicated, unless people start throwing in irrelevant matters.

        1. This is the complication: Hypothetically, let’s say that a foreign adversary’s state-intelligence bureau decides to intervene clandestinely to throw a US Presidential election toward A. How is the CIA/FBI/DoJ prepared to thwart these efforts, but in such a way as to NOT themselves tilt the election toward B?

          Should the CIA/DoJ/FBI be interested in whether any US citizens have been recruited into the plot? You bet! That would be part of their national security responsibility.

          The icky part is the DoJ/FBI could have quickly arranged a private meeting with candidate A, to educate about the psych ops tactics used by the foreigners to curry favor and influence, but the FBI didn’t reach out to the A campaign. That would have been SOP. Why didn’t Comey/McCabe arrange a meeting via the NYC Field Office when Russian interference became evident? Why did they closet the investigation to a small, close-knit group on the 7th floor of HQ?

          1. Yeah. That’s a bit off my topic concerning the inapplicability/unlawfulness of a special counsel, although your point about why action wasn’t taken by the FBI/DOJ to stop any of this before it got to where it got is highly relevant.

            And you mentioned that it was (and IS) a “national security responsibility” — which reinforces my point that it was a matter for FBI counterintelligence, NOT FBI criminal.

            Given the apparent absence of evidence that Trump or any major (or even minor) players in his campaign were involved — and given the documentation that has emerged that the accusations originated with the Clinton campaign — it seems a logical conclusion that people in the FBI and DOJ WANTED this situation to happen — which would explain why they didn’t alert Trump or his campaign.

            And I believe that there’s significant information indicating that this was largely a DNC/Clinton plan from the beginning, based upon their knowing that Trump had international business dealing which democrats could portray as nefarious connections to the Russian government.

            One thing that’s noteworthy is that nobody ever asks the question about where the FBI was and what it was doing during the Trump Tower meeting between Trump Jr. and others of the campaign with the Russian lawyer (who was actually working for Fusion GPS) and one of the other Russians, who is former Russian military intelligence.

            Hard to imagine that the FBI wasn’t keeping track of those Russians and didn’t know what they were up to. That Trump Tower meeting bears a remarkable resemblance to a sting operation — aka attempted unlawful entrapment. If there was actual collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, they wouldn’t have needed that sort of meeting.

            I thing it was all a fiction concocted by democrat “masterminds” assisted by democrats in the FBI, DOJ, and CIA. There’s a mountain of evidence pointing in that direction compared with no evidence to speak of indicating collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians.

      2. It doesn’t matter if this involved criminal vs. counter-intelligence,

        Yes it does matter. Criminal investigations by special counsel require precise specifications and triggers. See Andrew McCarthy’s writings on this topic. Rosenstein has been pretending the authorization to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation legitimated everything Mueller looks at.

      1. Excerpted from the WaPo article to which Mark M. pointedly linked William Bayer:

        This memo was dated Aug. 2, 2017. This was a little less than a month after the New York Times first reported that Manafort had joined Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner in a meeting at Trump Tower involving a Kremlin-linked lawyer. The initial response from Trump Jr. to reports of that meeting contained a misleading description of its origin — a misleading description that The Washington Post later reported was dictated by President Trump himself.

        That misleading response (and then-communications director Hope Hicks’s alleged assurance that emails contradicting it would “never get out”) is reportedly central to Mueller’s obstruction-of-justice investigation. In August, Rosenstein reinforced that any such obstruction investigation should be continued and completed — which Mueller made public in his filing on Monday night.

  10. In today’s piece, Professor Turley informs us that former members of Trump’s campaign are peculiar by most standards. Here’s what the professor says:

    “Stone and his former aide Sam Nunberg have been grabbing headlines with increasingly bizarre statements. Recently, Stone denounced Nunberg as a “lying ashole” and “psycho” and “coke head.”

    It is a bad combination to watch former advisers falling out while Mueller steadily plows ahead with expanded powers. Nevertheless, the memo shows both Mueller and Rosenstein playing by the book as they delve into these various allegations”.

    Professor Turley allows that Mueller and Rosenstein are soldiering on in a lawyerly manner. No allegations of misconduct.

    Trump supporters should take take heed. The former campaign officials in question are a checkered group of men. Paul Manafort, in particular, has distinguished himself as the most shadowy Campaign Manager in recent memory.

    Manafort actually spent some time living in The Ukraine where he was an advisor to President Victor Yanukovych, a close Putin ally. The FBI, in fact, began investigating Manafort in 2014, two years before Trump chose Manafort as Campaign Manager.

    It strains the imagination to think Paul Manafort was the only man capable of managing Trump’s campaign. Manafort’s expertise had actually been advising foreign leaders with dubious human rights records. In addition to Yanukovych, Manafort advised Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Mobutu Sese Seko of the Congo and Jonas Savimbi of Angola.

    Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein has authorized Special Counsel Mueller to expand his investigation of Manafort to include the latter’s many real estate deals which may reveal a pattern of money laundering. In fact, everything about Paul Manafort begs for scrutiny.

    The fact that Trump believed that Manafort would be a good fit for his campaign speaks volumes in itself. Manafort was, and is, by any measure, a man of many intrigues.

      1. So, Bayer, we should assume that you’re paid by the Kochtopus/Republicans/Russians?

        1. No — not a fan of the Kochs, NEVER been a republican, and NEVER been a Russian.
          What empty-headed partisans such as you would never consider is that some people are merely interested in the LAW. It’s not a matter of the Kochs, it’s not a matter of republican vs. democrat, and the Russians are something that is a matter of counterintelligence, NOT the judicial system.
          The ignorance and intellectual/ideological corruption of people such as you are a plague upon the civilized world.

          1. If you think T rump is a good president you ain’t interested in da rule of law.

            1. More empty rhetoric from the empty head of someone living an empty life.

                1. You’ve spent tons more time here than I ever have, and you never post anything but pure NONSENSE. Your life is a wasteland, and you spend all of your time here trying to drag people down to your juvenile level — replete with you enormously goofy “da” BS.
                  Troll on, moron.

                  1. “you would never consider that some people” write here because… But, Bayer you are the one who said other blog commenters were paid. WTH.
                    Bayer, your comments don’t warrant your high opinion of yourself.
                    Turley opens up his forum with lots of observational posts, some related to the law, others not.
                    Ken’s style is imaginative, pithy and obviously gets under the skin of the pompous and pedantic, in other words, Republicans.

                  2. Might I suggest you wear some sort of mask to keep the spittle from flying out and coating your monitor?

                    this is to “I’ve been committed before, so I know how crazy you people can make me!” willie

              1. Sirrah Bayer said, “More empty rhetoric from the empty head of someone living an empty life.”

                There exists no such person as one who lives an empty life. There exists only that life which one lives oneself and all of the other lives that others live themselves. To call the life that someone else lives an empty life is utterly vacuous misanthropy. And yet, not even the lives that utterly vacuous misanthropes, such as Sirrah Bayer, live can be called empty. Not even if Sirrah Bayer called his own life empty. Still Sirrah would be wrong.

    1. Manafort’s bio indicates that he was involved in GOP politics since at least 1976…he was described as a “delegate handler” in the 1976 GOP Convention, the last ” open” convention where the battle for delegates went down to the wire.
      He also had key roles in subsequent campaigns and conventions.
      Manafort evidently lobbied hard for a position in Trump’s campaign. He wrote a mutual friend ( of Manafort and Trump) asking for a recommendation.
      I don’t think that Trump knew Manafort before the 2015-2016 campaign.
      It isn’t clear if Trump, or those in his campaign, knew that Manafort was under FBI scrutiny when he came aboard on the Trump campaign.
      When that fact became public knowledge, Manafort was dropped from the campaign.
      Eliminating any reference to the previous experience of Manafort in GOP politics makes it easier to assume that Trump was looking for a shady character with connections to Russia.
      Manafort clearly faces a stack of serious charges; what isn’t clear is what Trump knew about him before he joined campaign.

      1. T rump met Pauly
        Manafort in 2006. Pauly bought a condo in Trump Tower. Da place is chock full of Russian oligarchs. Go figure. Mueller has da records. Will T rump pardon his neighbor and campaign manager?

      2. But isn’t it odd that Manafort happened to be an advisor to Putin ally Yanukovych? In light of the Russia scandal, engulfing Trump’s presidency, this particular connection stands out.

        If Trump had no previous acquaintance with Manafort, ‘who’ then recommended Manafort?

        One might speculate that establishment Republicans would have steered clear of Manafort. Establishment Republicans might have looked at Manafort’s recent job history and concluded he was ‘too intriguing’ for a presidential campaign. Why then did Trump feel that Manafort was a good fit for his campaign?

        1. But isn’t it odd that Manafort happened to be an advisor to Putin ally Yanukovych?

          Yanukovich was run out of office in 2014. What do Manafort’s business dealings with him have to do with Trump?

          1. Manafort was a political Advisor to Yanukovych. Manafort actually lived in the Ukraine and worked a regular job as a member Yanukovych’s regime. Yanukovych is a well-established Putin ally who fled to Russia after his ouster by a popular uprising.

            1. So what? Manafort has clients. So do Trump’s lawyers and accountants.

                1. He was concerned to tap Manafort’s skill set. Why would he care who was on Manafort’s client list? You hire lawyers without taking an interest in who else they’ve represented.

              1. We know Manafort got paid by clients. I hope the other clients of Trump’s lawyers, pay up. Otherwise they’d have to use money from a home equity credit line (Cohen). It’s hard to imagine that Sekulow wouldn’t be paid given the Wikipedia information about him.

        2. I stand corrected on the history of Trump-Manafort.
          A Oct. 30, 2017 article in Slate, “A timeline of Paul Manafort’s relationship with Trump” gives a history of their contacts prior to 2016.
          A couple of takes from that article: “The depth of that pre-2016 relationship is not well known”.
          They clearly had mutual friends and had met numerous timez prior to 2016.
          Their first meeting was evidently at the 1988 GOP Convention, where Manafort had a key role in the Bush 41 campaign.
          According to the article, “Manafort reached out to a mutual friend, Ton Barrack”, asking for a recommendation to the Trump campaign on his ( Manafort’s) behalf.

          1. “Tom Barrick” was the mutual friend..Manafort requested Barrick’s recommendation in early 2016.

          2. If Manafort needed an intermediary to get in touch with Trump, it’s a reasonable wager their ‘relationship’ did not have much ‘depth’.

            1. Nutchacha,…
              That’s why I had the impression that Trump and Manafort did not know each other prior to 2016.
              What I’d read previously seemed to characterize the Manafort request to Barrick ( the mutual friend) sound like a letter of introduction, as well as a recommendation, to Trump.

      3. That Manafort had been neither charged nor convicted of any crimes, and the FBI apparently didn’t warn Trump of any irregularities in Manafort’s background, indicates that it doesn’t really matter what Trump knew or didn’t know about Manafort.
        If Manafort had been previously charged or convicted of any crimes, of if the FBI had warned Trump of any concerns it had regarding Manafort, then Trump’s knowledge would be relevant.

        It’s not reasonable to expect Trump to be suspicious of a person who had no criminal history and about whom the authorities relayed no suspicions.

        Many of the wild allegations associated with these investigations appear to suggest that Trump was expected to know more about Manafort than the FBI knew. If there was some reason to be suspicious of Manafort, the FBI should have relayed that information to Trump — just as it should have relayed concerns about Carter Page or anyone else that the FBI deemed suspicious.

        1. W. Bayer,…
          I had wondered about that, too.
          I.E., could the FBI have told Trump that 2? guys on his campaign staff were under investigation?
          I don’t know if there are legal restrictions in an investigation that might have prevented relaying that info to the Trump campaign.
          Or if it’s FBI policy in ongoing investigations, or something else.
          I’ve never seen this topic covered in any of the numerous stories about Manafort/Page/Trump campaign history.

          1. That goes to the issue that many people have cited: Why did the FBI just stand by and allow these things to happen?
            Yes, the FBI could have and should have warned Trump if it thought his campaign was being or had been infiltrated by Russian operatives. That’s their job, just as it’s the FBI’s job to prevent terror attacks, not allow them to happen and investigate afterwards.

        2. Trump has never distinguished himself as a man of curiosity. His current choice for V.A. Administrator has no experience running major institutions. So it would be perfectly in character for Trump to accept Manafort at face value without any scrutiny of Manafort’s background. Though perhaps Trump had other reasons for hiring Manafort. And again, Manafort’s employment by a Putin ally is sufficiently intriguing in light of the Russia probe.

          1. Stopped reading after the first sentence. You people are the biggest wasted of time and space on Earth.

            1. “waste of time?” Mirror time, willie, mirror time.

              this is to “But my cut-and-pastes are informative and topical; hannity swears to it” willie

          2. Trump has never distinguished himself as a man of curiosity.

            The only occupants of the office in the last 50-odd years given much to exploratory reading were Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and George W. Bush.

            His current choice for V.A. Administrator has no experience running major institutions.

            This is an issue now with you? I take it you didn’t vote for Obama, then. That aside, his choice is an interim appointment. News reports have it that the job will eventually go to a flag-rank officer.

            1. The V.A. is a gigantic bureaucracy. The job should go to a person with that level of experience.

              With regards to exploratory reading, your reference to those particular presidents is baffling. Are we to believe they were the only presidents who read? I can’t imagine where you got that list or what point you are trying to make.

              1. It’s DSS — now NII’s — way of steering conversation. You slighted Trump as incurious, which seems true, so DSS/NII points out that most other modern presidents didn’t exploratorily read either; which was not your claim.

                DSS/NII switches subjective focus all the time so he can trot out lists while avoiding anyone’s actual clam or statement — he thinks it’s clever rather than boorish.

                1. That is his implicit claim. You wouldn’t make that claim if it were not a distinguishing feature of Trump. Its placement in the paragraph is also quite random.

                  Very few people are ‘curious’ except perhaps about things in which they are professionally enmeshed and, perhaps, one or two discrete avocations. This isn’t that difficult.

                  1. My, don’t you have it all figured out!

                    “Its placement in the paragraph is also quite random.”

                    It is topical and ties into the third sentence, “[s]o it would be perfectly in character for Trump to accept Manafort at face value without any scrutiny of Manafort’s background” while using the VA appointment, interim or not, to also exhibit Trump’s incurious nature.

                    “Very few people are ‘curious’ except perhaps about things in which they are professionally enmeshed and, perhaps, one or two discrete avocations.”

                    What self-congratulatory tripe. Is your implied meaning that you are the only curious one, o ye above the fray?

                    1. What self-congratulatory tripe. Is your implied meaning that you are the only curious one, o ye above the fray?

                      I cannot help you with your reading comprehension issue.

                      Manafort was actually hired by Jr. and Jared. For effect, Hill is pretending they should have taken an interest in Manafort’s client list.

                      The VA appointment indicates nothing whatsoever about anyone’s ‘incurious’ nature. He needed a utility man to fill the seat for an interim period of time and made use of someone who had already been vetted by his personnel operation.

              2. Sorry recent presidents are unfamiliar to you, but that’s not my problem.

                It’s an interim appointment. You’re not going to convince anyone this is of genuine interest to you.

                1. “Sorry recent presidents are unfamiliar to you, but that’s not my problem.”

                  A perfect example of DSS/NII cowardly methods. Change some detail to something not previously stated then slight the other for their ignorance.

                  When all else fails, DSS/NII will just state something like: No, you are a fool.

                  It’s really quite predictable, which makes DSS/NII’s actions pathetic.

                  1. He says he’s baffled. That’s his ignorance, not my cowardice. That remains so no matter how many random insults you string together.

                    1. Peter’s baffled because you twisted his incurious Trump comment into a presidential book club list; which is a very feeble response his original post. Then you slight him because you claim the sentence placement was wrong and that Peter is ignorant of modern presidents.

                      Not only are your methods in your last posts cowardly, they are also puerile.

                    2. Well, you know, McGill, we often don’t see ourselves as others do.

          3. Trump knew about his son-in-law and still hired him. He knew his son, Trump Jr., who subsequently met with Russians and denied it. A cover story about the meeting was written on Trump’s Air Force 1. Wasn’t Trump advised about Flynn and still hired him? At what point, does a conscientious government official charged with responsibility for national security say to himself, Trump’s not listening. We better make a new plan?

    2. Paul Manafort was a Wash DC campaign-design expert, highly sought after, for a couple of decades. After the fall of Communism, he was sought out by Ukrainians who wanted to learn how to run competitive election campaigns.

      Putin wasn’t viewed as a US adversary when the Manafort-Yanukovich work relationship began. Just the opposite…it was considered hip for US businesspeople to be forging relationships in the former communist world.

      Let’s try to remember history as it happened, and not back-project our current emotions. Putin became viewed as an enemy only after the 2014 Kiev Maidan revolt ousting Yanukovich, and the invasion of Crimea shortly thereafter. The shootdown of MH-17 passenger airliner by a Buk missile, and Russian lies about its involvement as weapons supplier (and poor trainer??) further increased animosity toward Russia.

      But it wasn’t until the 2016 election, the Wikileaks, and Democratic hysteria about Putin “colluding” with Trump (or owning him as a puppet) that the full-on Putin-as-devil emotion set into American media and political consciousness.

      1. Putin allowed Dmitry Medvedev to serve as President of Russia from 2008-2012. During that period, Obama’s first term, Putin kept a lower profile as Prime Minister of Russia. Therefore it appeared that Russia was, at least, vaguely democratic. But it’s clear by now that Putin was the true power in Russia even during the Medvedev years.

      1. Actually, what it speaks is that they were looking for someone with previous experience to run their operation at the Republican convention.

        1. Just because Manafort was fired after the platform committee fight at the convention doesn’t mean that Trump didn’t intend to run with Manafort as campaign manager all the way to November 8th, 2016. Besides, doing the bidding of Russia in The Ukraine was an area of particular expertise for Manafort. And the plank in favor of arming The Ukraine against Russia might have been removed from the Republican platform had the press not reported Manafort’s history of shady business dealings with Yanukovich and The Party of Regions.

          How was Trump supposed to know that the press was going to report about Manafort after the platform committee fight? How was Trump supposed to know that he would have to fire Manafort as campaign manager? For that matter, how is Trump supposed to know any of the things that he might have to do someday? It’s so unfair.

          Everything Trump does has to be retroactively justified on the basis of knowledge that Trump could not possibly have possessed at the time that Trump did whatever it was that he had to do–unknowingly.

          1. Trump’s yuge intuition leads him to hire “good people” ….like Pruitt.

  11. We have still not seen any charges connected to collusion allegations on the campaign though this week it was disclosed that Mueller is investigating the close Trump adviser Roger Stone’s alleged ties to the head of Wikileaks, which released many of the Clinton emails.

    Can you say ‘fishing expedition’?

    1. The “fishing expedition” has already caught some fish. Looks to me like they are fishing in the right waters, but the scales of justice say that every fish is innocent until proven guilty (or they are voluntarily gutted by Mueller).

      1. The fish ‘caught’ pled guilty to process crimes, so, no.

          1. Why lie, indeed. He’s married to the daughter of the head of Alfa Bank, one of Russia’s largest investment groups. The law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom is cooperating. Otherwise, van Der Zwaan might have succeeded in destroying the documents Mueller wanted.

          2. And a $20,000 fine with two months of court supervision. Not to mention that his billionaire Russian father-in-law, German Khan, controls the Alpha Bank that had a spam marketing operation running through the email servers at Trump Tower which some observers suspect of having been a back-channel communication link. Or not. So very many coincidences between Trump and Russia. After a while, the seemingly innocent, innocuous explanations start to wear thin, even though some of them might very well be coincidences.

            1. For those who may have forgotten, an Alfa computer server made 80% of the lookups to a Trump organization server. Second most look-ups, was Spectrum Health led by the brother-in-law of Erik Prince (Blackwater). The anomaly has defied explanation.

  12. The expansion shows not only the close supervision by Rosenstein but the care taken by Mueller not to exceed his mandate, which was already quite broad. The disclosure comes in the week with the first scheduled sentencing of a Mueller defendant. Warning: the story below contains foul language.

    See Andrew McCarthy’s writings about the shell-games Rosenstein and Mueller have been playing with his specific commission. Rosenstein isn’t Mueller’s supervisor. The two are thick as thieves. Expanding Mueller’s mandate to include Manafort’s business interests was gratuitous as these were irrelevant to the campaign and could be reviewed by the Criminal Division or one of the U.S. Attorneys. (And ain’t it interesting that this ‘expansion’ was kept confidential).

  13. A state visit to the White House from Putin should happen before Trump meets Supreme Dear Divine Leader Kim Jong Un. Putin could hook up with Mueller & clear the air.

    The talk should be about commodities like pork bellies, seeing that China imposed tariffs on them.

  14. “The expansion shows not only the close supervision by Rosenstein but the care taken by Mueller not to exceed his mandate, which was already quite broad.”

    You could also write that sentence as “The expansion shows not only the close supervision by Meyer Lansky but the care taken by Bugsy Siegel not to exceed his mandate, which was already quite broad.”

    1. You are confused today. T rump is da one with a bunch of mob lawyers.

  15. Pruitt and daughter got an advantageous D.C. rent deal. Media’s reporting that the EPA approved a pipeline linked to the landlord.
    The odds of nothing burgers for the Trump administration’s alleged wrongdoing- zero.

    1. “Media’s reporting?’ Is a nothing burger so once again Comrade Linda provides no facts, sites, cites, sources, publication names nor dates…no names not even an alledged unknown source. The odds of Comrade Linda’s Post being anything more than the ‘alleged” which means unproven is less than nothing. But what else is new. When it comes to dealing with or providing anything more than fairy tails we are left with the conclusion that the only source is ….Linda.

      1. Use internet search Michael, instead of disparaging the messenger.
        Republican repression found further support from SCOTUS- their decision- victims of excessive force have little or no recourse.

    2. How about Pruitt giving his friends from Oklahoma nice big raises after the WH refused to authorize. Of all the seedy characters in this administration, Pruitt is singularly dreadful.

      1. The door can’t hit Pruitt’s backside soon enough.
        Another Republican legislator looking for a way out- Bishop -Mich. – he’s trying to deep six his NRA A+ rating.

      2. I don’t know about “singularly”. Betsy and Ben surely merit the “dreadful” appellation as well….And what about Kellyanne and her “Alternate Facts”?
        Not to mention turkeys like Scaramucchi, Rob Porter, Omarossa, Bannon and Flynn who couldn’t even cut it in this dumpster fire of an administration?

  16. Da authoritarian T rump regime must be hot hot hot at Rosey today. Unlike McCabe and Comey. Rosen is a T rump appointment. Where are da tweets and da threats of firing. Hold up da rule of law and da regime will come attacking.

    1. and the only poster less reliable than Linda is Comrade Ken and his alt selfs. Do you suppose Ken, ken, and Linda are three and the same?

    2. I’m still not sure that American democracy will survive Trump – he clearly wants a dictatorship. But, there are a lot of courageous and determined people fighting hard to prevent him from destroying our country.

        1. Anyone who has paid attention to his comments and actions for the past two years knows he wants a dictatorship. Unless you’re in his cult.

              1. Yeah, he is one of them. We are fortunate to have a strong system that has kept him somewhat in check but unclear if it will hold.

            1. Didn’t require being psychic. Only requirement was to listen, have some knowledge of history, and not be a Trump cultist. He made it as plain as day and his intentions are clearer with every passing week.

                1. Read Timothy Snyder’s book On Tyranny. That might help you.

                  Also, read up on delusion disorder and sadistic narcissism. That might help, too.

                  1. Bayer’s booklist may give priority to the Weyrich training manual for conservatives. The lessons seem consistent with how he conducts himself.

          1. @Original Ken April 3, 2018 at 11:10 AM
            “T rump drinks 12 diet cokes a day so ya got that right.”

            If that’s true, that’s even more cause for concern about Trump’s lability:

            “Formaldehyde Poisoning from Aspartame [the sweetener in Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi]

            “In 1997 there was an increase in aspartame users reporting severe toxicity reactions and damage such as seizures, eye damage and vision loss, confusion, severe migraines, tremors, depression, anxiety attacks, insomnia, etc.

            “In the same years, Ralph Walton, MD, Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine showed that the only studies which didn’t find problems with aspartame where those funded by the manufacturer (Monsanto). Given the agreement amongst independent scientists about the toxicity of aspartame, the only question was whether the formaldehyde exposure from aspartame caused the toxicity.

            “That question has now been largely answered because of research in the late 1990s.

            “The following facts shown by recent scientific research:
            1. Aspartame (nutrasweet) breaks down into methanol (wood alcohol).
            2. Methanol quickly converts to formaldehyde in the body.
            3. Formaldehyde causes gradual and eventually severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and causes permanent genetic damage at extremely low doses.
            4. Methanol from alcoholic beverages and from fruit and juices does not convert to formaldehyde and cause damage because there are protective chemicals in these traditionally ingested beverages.
            5. The most recent independent research in Europe demonstrates that ingestion of small amounts of aspartame leads to the accumulation of significant levels of formaldehyde (bound to protein) in organs (liver, kidneys, brain) and tissues.
            6. Excitotoxic amino acids such as the one which is immediately released from aspartame likely increases the damage caused by the formaldehyde.”

            http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/embalm.html

            “Formaldehyde is grouped in the same class of poisons as Cyanide and Arsenic – which are very deadly toxins. The only difference is… Formaldehyde kills quietly, and it takes a little longer. And, in the process of killing people, it causes all kinds of neurological problems.

            “At the Conference of the American College of Physicians, doctors admitted that they did not know the cause of the epidemic in MS and Lupus. It is believed [however] that the phenylalanine in the Aspartame breaks down the seizure threshold and depletes Serotonin, which causes manic depression, panic attacks, rage, and violence.

            “According to the Conference of the American College of Physicians, ‘We are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by this deadly poison.’ ”

            http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/aspartame-poison.html

      1. We survived the Civil War so I guess we’ll muddle thru Trump as well.
        Our Nation has historically shown great resiliency, right from the start.

          1. Name one time, can not do it because it never happened. I hope the gov’t comes for guns one day and you are door one.

            1. The fools think their hand held guns will protect them from the drones paid for by the oligarchs.

              1. I think that the Civil Air Patrol is still around.
                Those who perceive a threat from the oligarch drones could contact the CAP and alert them to be on the lookout.
                No individual should have to shoulder the burden of scanning the skies for oligarch drones on their own.

                1. A small, personal flotilla of reflective mylar balloons that say “Happy Birthday” or “Get Well Soon” should interfere with laser gun-sighting on the drones without posing a hazard to CAP enforced drone no-fly zones. Unless the drones learn to read the messages on the balloons.

                2. Give the advice to the citizens of Baltimore. Their police department took money from John Arnold (of Enron infamy) to conduct community aerial surveillance. The elected leaders of Baltimore knew nothing about the program and stopped it when they found out.
                  The richest 0.1% are sneaky devils. They should be relieved of the burden of misspending their money.
                  It’s interesting that Russia doesn’t capitalize on the most obvious division in America- income inequality. Is that because it could potentially threaten Russia’s similar oligarchy that impoverishes its nation’s people?

                  1. You mean the billionaire Democrat John Arnold?
                    The Baltimore aerial surveillance, funded by Arnold,was conducted with a Cessna, not drones.
                    So you may need to watch for Cessna planes if he’s funding a similar program in your area.
                    The Canadian law enforcement agencies seem to be using drones…for over 15 years….more than American PDs.
                    So you may want to warn them as well, buy I don’t think that John Arnold is involved in funding the Canadian drones.

      2. carey said, “. . . there are a lot of courageous and determined people fighting hard to prevent him from destroying our country.”

        And carey is one of them, too.

  17. (1) “The memo by Rosenstein allowed Mueller to investigate allegations that Manafort ‘committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials’’ to interfere with the presidential election.”

    What criminal statute is it that corresponds with “colluding with Russian government officials to interfere with the presidential election”?

    (2) “We have still not seen any charges connected to collusion allegations on the campaign …”

    AGAIN: What criminal statute corresponds with “charges connected to collusion allegations on the campaign”?

    (3) “… the mandate for Mueller in allowing him to pursue collusion allegations against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort …”

    What regulation or statute authorizes a special counsel to “pursue collusion allegations?”

    (4) Prior to Mueller being appointed special counsel, these matters were being pursued under the theory that they were matters of “counterintelligence,” as James Comey testified to under oath.

    WHERE/HOW did they become “criminal” matters, and why did both Comey and Mueller have FBI “counterintelligence” personnel leading the investigation — people from the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division — instead of people from the FBI’s Criminal Division?

    (5) For a legal blog, this website sure comes up pitifully short of examining the actual LAW when it writes about Mueller, McCabe, Comey & Co.

    1. As we’ve pointed out for over a year … collusion is not a crime. It is however the word chosen by the press to be their buzz word of the moment. I remember when it was draconian… and ‘no one’s business…. but always regardless of the daily buzz is completely farcial

      1. What’s truly pitiful is that I expect the media to peddle manure such as this, but when a lawyer does it, it’s REALLY disgusting.
        This piece bears about as much resemblance to legal analysis as Paul Krugman’s NYT opinion pieces bear to legitimate economic theories.
        What Turley is doing with this piece (and several others) and what Krugman does habitually are nothing but excuses to push a democrat agenda under the pretense that they have something to do with law (Turley)or economics (Krugman).
        In Turley’s case, never have so many words been written about a special counsel (whose only legitimate authority is to investigate crime) without mentioning a single criminal statute.
        These people are just making up “law” as they go along, same as Comey was doing for years.

        1. Laffer’s curve drawn on a cocktail napkin (later debunked), masqueraded as economics and had the sole purpose to advance concentrated wealth. Rogoff and Rhinehardt- how embarrassing for them to be called out for flawed research by Krugman.

        2. Has the spoon — so long in your mouth — fallen to the floor, out of your grasp?

    2. Manafort and Gates had an ongoing conspiracy to commit money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud. Manafort was trading on his position as Trump’s campaign manager to further his conspiracy and to get whole again with Oleg Deripaska to whom Manafort owed an alleged $19 million.

      As for the alleged coordination of Trump campaign activities with Russian efforts to cultivate members of the Trump campaign and to wage information warfare in the 2016 election, one would have to guess based upon limited and sketchy press reports.

      For instance, there was an effort to change the platform of Republican party away from arming The Ukraine. The effort failed when the press reported on it and Manafort was fired as Trump’s campaign manager almost immediately thereafter. Other guesses are possible, but they would each go to an allegation made against Manafort in the Steele dossier. So I won’t trouble you with those guesses.

      1. And yet you identified not one criminal statute — ya know, “statute” — a source at law, not to be confused with rhetoric.

        1. Money laundering, bank fraud, tax fraud. Remember: Roger Stone was Paul Manafort’s business partner for many years. Roger Stone has an as-yet-undisclosed relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange. Roger Stone is also one of the most notorious dirty tricksters in American politics. And the Steele dossier alleged that Manafort was managing the communications between the Trump campaign and The Russians at least until Manafort was fired as Trump’s campaign manager. After that, it was Gates and Michael D. Cohen who allegedly managed communications with the Russians.

          1. Ah, yes — you’re talking about 18 US Code § Roger Stone is also one of the most notorious dirty tricksters in American politics.

            1. There is no law against Roger Stone of which I am aware. There are however laws against money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud.

          2. Roger Stone has an as-yet-undisclosed relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange.

            It’s ‘undisclosed’, but somehow you know about it.

            And the Steele dossier alleged

            LMAO.

  18. Since the original mandate was illegal,I am not sure expanding it is any more legal.

    1. Rosey knows da law better than you. Must be some powerful evidence.

      1. You don’t even know da difference between “law” and “evidence.” Findings of Fact are not the same thing as Conclusions at Law.

        1. Whatever, paralegal wannabe. Those money trails have to be somethin else.

          1. Like I said, flaming JACKASS — you’re shooting your mouth off about things concerning which you know NOTHING.

            1. We’re not supposed to know what evidence Mueller has gathered. If we did know, it would have to have been leaked to the press. Therefore, the fact that we don’t know whatever Mueller knows indicates that the OSC has been running a tight-lipped ship. Just imagine your own distemper if Mueller were leaking to the press.

              1. And yet not knowing doesn’t keep people such as you from shooting your mouths off.
                But the LAW is published. It’s public information, as are a few facts such as that Comey testified that he was conducting a “counterintelligence investigation” — as compared with the controlling federal regulation, 28 CFR § 600.1, which stipulates that a special counsel can only be appointed to conduct a CRIMINAL investigation.
                You, like the other hired DNC trolls that infest this cite, are spewing pure rhetoric — and it’s ignorant rhetoric at that.

                1. Yes, everyone you disagree with is paid to spout rhetoric. I would leave a longer post but I have to go cash my check for One Million Dollars for making this comment.

                  See you later William “Ren” Bayer.

                2. Proud Bayer said, “And yet not knowing doesn’t keep people such as you from shooting your mouths off.”

                  In the first place, guessing is allowed under the law known as the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In the second place, there is no law that requires the adversaries of William Bayer to lie down, roll over and play dead. In the third place, the adversaries of William Bayer never will lie down, roll over and play dead. Finally, Proud Bayer’s unwarranted presumption of superiority is an all-too-obvious consequence of Sirrah’s traumatic childhood experiences with toilet training.

              2. Bayer’s trying desperately to cover for his lack of good judgment in voting for Trump.

              3. Therefore, the fact that we don’t know whatever Mueller knows indicates that the OSC has been running a tight-lipped ship.

                Keep the faith, Diane. That his indictments to date have consisted of process crimes, petty contentions contra Russian internet trolls that he’ll never have to prove, and contentions about Paul Manafort’s business don’t mean nuttin’.

                1. Business meetings can be used as cover stories for conspiracy to commit election fraud by means of fencing or receiving stolen goods such as hacked emails. Money laundering and bank fraud can be used to pay hackers and other information warfare operatives. Money laundering and bank fraud can also be used to buy stolen goods such as hacked emails. The political consulting that Paul Manafort did for Victor Yanukovich and The Party of Regions was alleged to involve such practices during the Russian information warfare operation in The Ukraine.

                  But most importantly of all, the OSC indictments against Manafort and Gates allege that they never stopped their ongoing conspiracy to commit money laundering, bank fraud and tax fraud until the OSC indicted them. Because that alleged conspiracy was ongoing, it also allegedly was being furthered while Manafort and Gates were members of the Trump campaign. That Manafort was fired as Trump’s campaign manager in no way negates the fact that Gates (Manafort’s alleged co-conspirator) was not fired from the Trump campaign and served on Trump’s transition team.

                  And that is how and why Rosenstein expanded the scope of the OSC investigation to delve into the financial crimes for which Manafort and Gates were indicted. Consequently, the indictment against Manafort will not be dismissed. The chances that Manafort will cut a plea-deal with Mueller for reduced charges in exchange for becoming a cooperating witness in the OSC investigation are now greater than they were the day before yesterday. So what sort of testimony might Manafort have to offer Mueller? And who else might Manafort’s testimony implicate in whatever crimes about which Manafort might know?

                  1. Just keep waving your hands and maybe something will happen. Abracadabra.

                    1. If nothing is there, the Russian trolls and bots are a misuse of the Russian people’s money. I’m sure you agree?

              1. “I only speak right on. I tell you that which you yourselves do know …” Mark Antony (J. Caesar, Shakespeare)

              1. Except that I’m not shooting my mouth off about things concerning which I know nothing. If I knew nothing about these matters, I’d have lost ever case I’ve taken to the court of appeals instead of winning every case.

                1. Well then you had better send your resume to the Donald. He’s looking to hire someone who has never lost a case in court. You won’t get hired by Trump hanging around here.

                  1. Maybe not getting paid is a deterrent?
                    If Bayer had worked with Sekulow (check out his Wikipedia entry) on the Jews for Jesus case, he too could have been plucked from obscurity to be a Trump attorney.

            2. So says the Master of the insult and the ad hominem.
              Up your game, Bayer.

          2. The money trail was disclosed by Meuller as Clinton and DNC to former British Agent etc. And publicly admitted to by the recipients from Russia to Clinton foundation…. in the form of speech fees and nowhere else. That is no mystery. Just evidence waiting to be used.

        2. Neither of which as you point out are found in the Gang of Sources posts… and never have been. As I recall even when provided led either to NYT or some unheard of publication given to baseless conjecture.

      2. Personal opinion = unsubstantiated propaganda leading to a false conclusion. Were it not false there would have been some shred of evidence or perhaps half a fact. REJECTED.

        1. It looks like the Sinclair talking points got here a bit late but keep on keeping on.

    2. That two but it fits the pattern of the ‘Gang of Sources.’

    3. There were no articulable facts of a crime; merely theories of counter-intelligence operations – all based on the fraudulent “dossier”. By contrast, much of the DOJ/FBI leadership has already been disciplined, reassigned or fired due to the fact-based actions of the IG.

      It’s like watching, in real time, the fallacy and fraud of the JFK assassination conspiracy play out right before our eyes and not being able to do anything to get the truth through the thick skulls of Americans.

Comments are closed.