re: Thick as thieves. Mueller gives Comey get-out-of-jail-for-free card...immunity.

quote:

---

My point is that Mueller's relationship with Comey was known at the time of the appointment, so unless new information arises, it would be hard to see the the Deputy AG alleging a conflict of interest NOW, but not at the time of the appointment.

---

True, his relationship was most certainly known , BUT the importance of Comey to any investigation was not , and frankly still isn't.

Here it is simple as this. IF Mueller is at all entertaining thoughts of charging Trump with obstruction, he MUST recuse himself because that charge would rely solely on the testimony of Comey. He would have ZERO excuse not to.

On the other hand, if (as I suspect) Mueller is not even considering obstruction then the question of his relationship is not important because Comey is NOT a key witness against Trump or anyone else , he's merely an investigator who happened to work with Mueller at one time and the beat goes on.

So, the fact that Mueller is not resigning and or has not been fired tells me that there is no ongoing investigation into obstruction, primarily because in fact the POTUS did not obstruct anything.

Yeah. That source seems totally legit.

quote:

---

It seems that jurisdiction is under the power and authority of the AG (or deputy AG in this case), but in general, he has full and independent power and authority within that jurisdiction

---

So he has accountability although it seems to be very slim. However, he DOES operate at the pleasure of the DOJ/AG/ DAG.

If Rosenstein or for that matter Sessions has enough of this shite show, they could simply fire him....I don't think they should have appointed one to begin with.

What happens though if the underlying assumptions of colluding with the Russians is shown to be a work of fantasy dreamed up in Ben Rhodes' mind to create an echo chamber that gets out of hand....e.g. there was never any truth to the assumption of collusion?

Here is your problem Buckeye and it should be concerning to everyone. When you appoint a special counsel everyone gets afraid to keep a thumb on him. Therefore he is free to "roam" like what happened in the Whitewater case. The investigation should have stayed in the realm of things pertinent to Whitewaer and nothing else....it was found out later that Clinton entered into a loser of a land deal with McDougal.

Now Mueller will subpoena crap that he really has no business knowing about. If the rumors are true he wants to subpoena Trump's tax returns, and documents of the Kushners to look into their dealings with Russians as a matter of business......this keeps Mueller in business for 3-4 years and allows him to go on a fishing expedition.

I wouldn't be surprised if this things spirals into a tax violation that has nothing to do with Russians.

The IC is the closest thing to everlasting life in Washington.

Thatis why the Special counsel/ Independent Counsel should never ever happen. The IC's job is to get a conviction and IC's have proven that they will do anything in order to get one.....see Plame wherein I still believe that Fitzgerald NEED to be in jail for what he did. I also think that Starr should have stopped when he determined that Clinton did nothing wrong with Whitewater.....let Paula Jones's attorney pursue the perjury and obstruction charges against Clinton.

quote:

---

So, the fact that Mueller is not resigning and or has not been fired tells me that there is no ongoing investigation into obstruction, primarily because in fact the POTUS did not obstruct anything

---

I'll tend to agree on this but he will keep it out there in the far background. AS obstruction cases go, this one is a loser and a big loser at that. This is a fishing expedition to get at Trump's tax returns.....it will not be about Russia and collusion, because the evidence or lack thereof is wanting. I wouldn't fire him (Mueller) now, but if he goes fishing and this lasts until the midterms with nothing substantive then on Nov 10, 2018, I would direct my AG or DAG to fire Mueller and stop the investigation and if the Democrats protest too much, take up a go fund me and book a large fishing charter for Schumer, Widen, Warner Harris, et al.

quote:

---

Leaking is not a crime unless there is classified information in the leak.

---

This is not true. The Federal Records Act makes it a crime to release federal records without authorization.

If you have to LIE to hold your position, you need to rethink your position

18 Code 641 reads

[img]Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.[/img]

You'll notice that there is no mention of "if the record contains classified material"

quote:

---

Immunity for what?

---

There is question as to legality of Comey's known actions. There is suspicion by Administration members of other potentially illegal activities on Comey's part.

Presumption is Comey would not have volunteered leaking the Memo unless assured he could not be prosecuted for it. Prosecution could occur via SC or the DOJ. Hence the thesis immunity was offered.

quote:

---

would Meuller's Immunity apply there to?

---

Well since this is most likely untrue, immunity wouldn't apply anywhere.

Believes. No facts.

Therefore #fakenews

quote:

---

Presumption is Comey would not have volunteered leaking the Memo unless assured he could not be prosecuted for it. Prosecution could occur via SC or the DOJ. Hence the thesis immunity was offered.

---

So he would have lied under oath instead, especially since the criminality of his leak is minor and/or a weak case.

DOJ Resource Regarding Records

quote:

---

The taking of a public record or document is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 641. The destruction of such records may be reached under 18 U.S.C. § 1361. In both instances, however, proving a $100 loss, the prerequisite to a felony conviction, may be difficult.

---

quote:

---

The necessary measure of protection for government documents and records is provided by 18 U.S.C. § 2071. Section 2071(a) contains a broad prohibition against destruction of government records or attempts to destroy such records

---

quote:

---

There are several important aspects to this offense. First, it is a specific intent crime. This means that the defendant must act intentionally with knowledge that he is violating the law

---

quote:

---

This has led one court to conclude that the mere photocopying of these records does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 2071.

---

So if it was just Comey’s copy of the memo, it may not even be a violation of the law, especially if he considered it his own personal (img intellectual) property as well since it's his own recollection of thoughts.

Besides given the nature of the memo, do you really think there is any reasonable criminal case against him.

quote:

---

Why the F would the FBI director need immunity?

---

quote:

---

A complete review of this case illustrates that by striking an immunity deal Comey has essentially used the Washington D.C. system and his connections to insulate himself from any felony criminal charges, including whether he participated in the illegal unmasking of Trump or any other Americans during the election based on FISA court-ordered wiretaps or whether he played a role covering up crimes committed by Hillary Clinton.

---