Friday, May 25

Former Attorney-general: Mueller's appointment violated DOJ regs, was legally defective


Former Attorney-General Mike Mukasey has written an opinion piece for a national paper claiming that Rod Rosenstein's appointment of special counsel Robert Muller violated DOJ regs.  Here's the crux:

Justice Department regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only if (i) there is reason to think that a federal crime has been committed, and (ii) investigating it would present a conflict of interest for the Justice Department or there is another overriding public reason to take the investigation outside DOJ.

Because Attorney General Sessions had worked on the Trump campaign, he recused himself from the matter, and so the deputy A-G — Rod Rosenstein — made the decision to appoint a special counsel. 

The regulations require that all such appointments recite the facts justifying the conclusion that a federal crime was committed, and specify the crime. However, Rosenstein's initial appointment of  Mueller did neither, referring instead to a national security investigation that a special counsel has no authority to pursue.

Although Rosenstein apparently tried to correct his mistake in a new appointment memo, he has thus far refused to publicly disclose a complete copy of it. In other investigations supposedly implicating a president — Watergate and Whitewater come to mind — we were told what the crime was and what facts justified the investigation. Not here.
BTW, right in the middle of Mukasey's hard-hitting piece, USAToday inserted this piece of anti-Trump propaganda:
OUR VIEW: Mueller's investigation is so serious, let's hope he finishes soon
So how does this affect us now?  If Mueller had found any evidence of "collusion with Russia" that would have been leaked to the Lying Mainstream Media within two days.  OTOH, if he finds no evidence of any collusion, does anyone believe his final report will say that?  Of course not.  Instead the report--which will almost certainly be released a month before the mid-term elections--will say something like this:
"Despite overwhelming evidence *suggesting* collusion, and our doing everything possible to get members of the Trump campaign and administration to admit that the campaign colluded with Russia, no one would confess.  Thus we *reluctantly conclude* that recommending impeachment or indictment would be a waste of time. 
So 'for the good of the country' we will close this investigation by saying that while the president almost certainly did collud with Russia to rig the election and thus steal it from his overwhelmingly-favored Democratic opponent, any penalty for these likely acts must be left to congress or voters.
And with that deft bit of propaganda, the Trump administration will be hamstrung.

Mission accomplished.
 
Now: Surely some upper-level FBI agents know what happened.  They could come forward, first in secret, telling what they know.  Then once the tale of total, rampant corruption in the FBI had been completely revealed, their roles as honest men of integrity would be secured.

But as far as anyone here in flyover country knows, no such agent has come forward.
 
242 years ago the most forward-thinking men on the planet pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to found this nation.

Today the most important consideration is "muh pensionz."

Sad.  And it speaks volumes about what's happened to American society.

In the dim, distant past editors often quoted this phrase: "Our nation is a nation of laws, not of men." What that meant was that no one--regardless of power--was above the law.  The law was to be applied equally to all, regardless of a person's wealth or power.  Obviously that didn't prevent corruption, but as far as we can tell it worked reasonably well.

But today we have two sets of laws--one for Connected people and a second for Ordinary people.  If you're part of the Connected class you can get away with damn near anything, while members of the second group are hammered for breaking any of the 482,000 rules in the federal code.

Liberals seem to think there's nothing wrong with having two sets of rules/laws.  (At least no liberal "elite" has ever written anything critical of this condition.)  Never dawns on 'em that this could have any detrimental effect at all on our society.

Look around you, libs:  How's life in big cities?  Is crime up or down?  (In many cities the "official" stats say down.  Stories in the local papers suggest that's not true.  Say, you don't think Democrat rulers of the big cities would possibly be lying about crime rates to make themselves look better, do ya'?  Why, that's like claiming Dem-run school districts deliberately avoid charging young offenders of Preferred Pigmentation with crimes to curry favor with the Obama administration. Un-possible, citizen!)

If our society is getting more lawless, how do libs explain it?  Are incomes down?  Cost of living going way up?  People being forced to steal to survive?  ("Tale of Two Cities")  No to all.

So how so Dems and liberals explain it?

Can't possibly have anything to do with corruption, and "two sets of laws," right?  Cuz, how in the world would any member of the criminal class figure out that the elites--including top FBI and DOJ officials--were skating for crimes that would put anyone else in jail for 20 years?  I mean, it's just too, too esoteric.  No one could possibly make that connection.

But by all means, vote Dem in November.  We really, really need to reign in this awful, raaaacis' orange president and his party of scoundrels, so we can keep the "two sets of laws" principle on which this nation was founded.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home