Mueller argues Whitaker appointment has no impact in ongoing subpoena fight

[j-mac]

Clearly, I will find out when the information becomes public. Why is this complicated for you?

That's fine...you don't need to address me like that...if that's how you feel you need to reply, do us both a favor and just don't...

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[j-mac]

Nobody but Mueller and his team knows who's going to be indicted next.

Ok, so for all we know it could be 3 dozen more Russians that will never be brought to trial, right?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

 

[Cardinal]

Ok, so for all we know it could be 3 dozen more Russians that will never be brought to trial, right?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk

Sure, or maybe it'll be Roger Stone, or maybe it'll be Jared Kushner, or maybe it'll be none of them. Guess we'll find out when it happens.

 

[Samhain]

Further proof whitaker is a plant and is either too stupid to realize it or already made a deal with mueller. Or Mueller/Rosenstein put him there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Further proof you didn't read the article linked.

 

[Cardinal]

Isn't that prosecutorial discretion?

To be clear, the House would be able to call on Mueller to answer any question they have about the conduct of the investigation and interference, if any, that Whitaker performed. .

 

[Samhain]

To be clear, the House would be able to call on Mueller to answer any question they have about the conduct of the investigation and interference, if any, that Whitaker performed. .

For sure, but my point still is valid: isn't the declining of an indictment a valid prosecutorial discretion action? We've seen the executive branch throughout the years choose to not enforce violations of the law. Say its an indictment of John Doe, he could decline it and say its not in the best interests of the US government to pursue a case.

Or would that action be Obstruction of Justice? But when isn't prosecutorial discretion NOT an obstruction of justice? I see both sides of the coin there.

 

[Cardinal]

For sure, but my point still is valid: isn't the declining of an indictment a valid prosecutorial discretion action? We've seen the executive branch throughout the years choose to not enforce violations of the law. Say its an indictment of John Doe, he could decline it and say its not in the best interests of the US government to pursue a case.

Or would that action be Obstruction of Justice? But when isn't prosecutorial discretion NOT an obstruction of justice? I see both sides of the coin there.

Yes, when conflict of interest, prejudgment of the investigation and finally prior statements theorizing how he would effectively shut down the investigation are factored in, it would constitute obstruction of justice. The circumstances are relevant.

 

[Jack Fabulous]

It has started. This administration is now attempting to shut down the investigation, and guess what? It won't work. More than 3 dozen sealed indictments are already on the DC docket, and Trump has no power whatsoever to make them go away, which is why he is attempting this desperation move, which will fail spectacularly in very short order. The clock of justice is ticking down, and when it reaches zero, there is going to be hell to pay.

https://kbzk.com/cnn-us-politics/20...ment-has-no-impact-in-ongoing-subpoena-fight/

It's a click bait piece, Dana.

The case involves Andrew Miller, an associate of Stone’s who was subpoenaed earlier this year. He refused to testify before the grand jury, even after a trial-level judge ordered he must. The judge held Miller in contempt of court, so he has taken his case to the federal Court of Appeals. Generally, Miller seeks to invalidate Mueller’s work. He argues that Mueller cannot subpoena him because the special counsel was not appointed by the President nor confirmed by the US Senate.

Nothing about this case has anything to do with actions by the administration. The appeal has nothing to do with Whitaker, his appointment, or anything else.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/oral-argument-preview-re-grand-jury-investigation-andrew-miller-case

In May 2018, Mueller’s office served Miller with subpoenas to appear before the grand jury and produce documents. Miller failed to appear before the grand jury. A month later, in June, the special counsel’s office issued a second set of subpoenas requiring document production and a grand jury appearance. After Miller objected to the request for documents and a hearing by the district court, the parties reached an agreement on the scope of the documents requested and the court ordered Miller to produce the documents and appear before the grand jury. Miller provided the documents as ordered, but on June 28, the day before he was scheduled to appear before the grand jury, he filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash the subpoena, arguing that Mueller had been unconstitutionally appointed.

After expedited briefing, in late July Judge Beryl A. Howell denied Miller’s motion and ordered him to appear before a grand jury in August. Miller then moved to be held in civil contempt, but requested that the contempt order be stayed so he could appeal it. The court held Miller in contempt and stayed the order while Miller appealed the case to the D.C. Circuit.

Note the dates. All of this was set in motion long before Sessions stepped down and Whitaker was appointed.

I believe this falls under the category of what some people like to call "fake news".

 

[Atomic Kid]

Isn't that prosecutorial discretion?

It's Justice Dept. rules.

28 CFR 600.9 - Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

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

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

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

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

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

 

[Samhain]

It's Justice Dept. rules.

28 CFR 600.9 - Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

§ 600.9 Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

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

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

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

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

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

So he can turn them down, but at the conclusion of the investigation, he needs to report to Congress, which is still prosecutorial discretion. Wonder if Rosenstein had to turn over that documentation to Whitaker.

 

[Atomic Kid]

So he can turn them down, but at the conclusion of the investigation, he needs to report to Congress, which is still prosecutorial discretion. Wonder if Rosenstein had to turn over that documentation to Whitaker.

Not in this case it wouldn't. It's mandated. (a), which I should have bolded, says that the Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee of each House of Congress with an explanation for each action.So one way Mueller could ensure that his report does get out to Congress would be to indict President Trump. Which is something that the DOJ Legal Counsel Office has rendered a legal opinion saying "indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." So right there you would have a "proposed action" by a Special Counsel that the Attorney General, or Acting Attorney General in this instance, in refusing the indictment will have concluded that the proposed action was "inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued" And Bingo! We have a report by Mueller.