Fleeting thoughts

Update to 5.6.18 post:

Link to Hill op-ed via Instapundit.

5.8.18: comment:

The argument only vaguely resembles this one below.  After writing this, I would like to re-state what I meant.  It is like this:  a cop investigates, but he doesn't prosecute.  An FBI agent investigates, but he doesn't prosecute.  There should be a firewall between the investigative authority and the court.

Rosenstein's directive fuses them together into one office.  Not only that, it does it in a way that bypasses the law with respect to establishing a crime first before locating the suspect.  What this Mueller investigation has done is select the man and then find the crime.  It must be disallowed and Mueller should be dismissed.


the original post follows:

Many times over the years that I have been writing this blog, I have noted that thoughts have a way of appearing and disappearing.  These thoughts may have been worth a post, but having had the thoughts, and not having made notes of the thoughts, the ideas slip into the ether, so to speak.

I just had one of those thoughts, and now, I am in possession of the keyboard in front of me, and the motivation to write about it.  Provided that I don't forget about it first.

It is about Rosenstein once again, so, I will pause here and review what I want to discuss...

...be back once I finish...

...okay back.

The point with Manafort is that the cases Mueller is prosecuting are over a decade old.  No charges were brought from that case, but are being revived now.  What this judge Ellis is looking for is the authority to bring back something essentially from the dead.

Actually, I reviewed Rosenstein's letter to nominate Mueller.  Rosenstein did give Mueller authority to prosecute.  This appears to be the bone of contention.  You cannot conduct both an investigation of possible "collusion", and then prosecute based upon that.  This is much too sweeping of an authorization.  It is the investigation of a political act based upon something that may be criminal.  But whatever is said to be criminal must be done on another authority, not Mueller's.

What Sundance at CTH is pointing out, and the judge is pointing out, is that these are separate issues legally.  You cannot conduct an internal investigation and be a head of the prosecution at the same time.  Take the OIG report that is coming out.  Horowitz is at the head of that.  However, another prosecutor will take over from there once he is through.  It doesn't all go through Horowitz.

An example?  The recent McCabe report from Horowitz's team.  Horowitz didn't prosecute, but referred the matter for prosecution to the US Attorney.  So, why doesn't Mueller do this instead of what he is doing with Flynn et. al?  Because Rosenstein gave him too much authority.

Mueller doesn't have any evidence, it seems.  It seems to me that he is forcing people into phony confessions so that it appears that he has something, then he will leverage that into a more substantive case.

A more proper way to do it would be to refer this to Congress for impeachment if the matter warrants.  In the end, that is what he may do, but this other stuff ( Manafort, Flynn ) appears to be over the line.  For example, Flynn may not have been lying, but may have agreed to a false charge for other reasons aside from guilt.  Manafort's case is a clear matter of lack of evidence.  Otherwise, why didn't they prosecute years ago?  Neither case has anything to do with the election of 2016.  A fair question is whether or not these cases are being used to prop up a rather weak case.

Why give all that authority to investigate and prosecute to just one man?   There's too much opportunity for misconduct.