Favor factory? Huma emails ...

[josie_L]

Please show a news source that Rosenstein has recused himself? He appointed mueller, he sets the guidelines, he is in charge of whether mueller stays or goes.

No, he has not recused himself per se, but his role is limited in this investigation and the reasons being:

In fairness to Rosenstein, recusal is not as much of a pressing question for him as it was for Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The appointment of a special counsel is itself a type of recusal for the entire department. However, Rosenstein continues to hold some authority in being able to countermand decisions of the special counsel (though such decisions are reported to Congress).

He also holds the final word on whether Mueller can continue as special counsel. That gives him a modicum of influence over a Special Prosecutor who could be investigating Rosenstein’s own role in the firing of Comey. Rosenstein could also be a witness on the narrative put out by the White House after the firing — citing Rosenstein as the moving force behind the termination (an account Rosenstein reportedly objected to as false or misleading).

thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/338138-opinion-if-rosenstein-recuses-himself-mueller-may-not

And just three hours ago said author from the same news outlet wrote:

I was skeptical about the appointment of a special counsel before the firing because such an appointment should be accompanied by an articulable criminal act — something missing in the vague references to “collusion” with the Russians.

My view changed after Trump fired Comey on May 9. At that point, I believed that Rosenstein was right about the need for a special counsel to assure the public that a full and independent investigation would be conducted. However, his choice of Robert Mueller was a mistake. Mueller interviewed for Comey’s job, and Trump presumably spoke to Mueller about his reasons for firing Comey.

Moreover, Mueller and Comey have a close prior professional history. Both men were involved in a historic moment during the George W. Bush administration where they stood side by side to oppose an unlawful surveillance program. It was a moment that would define the legacies of both men — and enjoin them in history.

Rosenstein magnified that error with a mandate for Mueller that is strikingly broad. Yet this week, Rosenstein assured the public that “Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation, and so no, it’s not a fishing expedition.” If so, that understanding has remained strangely unstated.

The special counsel provision found in 28 CFR 600, states that the attorney general (or in this case, the deputy attorney general) shall establish by jurisdiction of the special counsel “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.”

The statement given to Robert Mueller was anything but specific. It simply stated that Mueller was to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” and “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

With such a sweeping mandate, the role of the deputy attorney general in the investigation is even higher than usual. Rosenstein is performing the role of the attorney general after Jeff Sessions correctly recused himself. Under the rules, Mueller is specifically allowed to investigate “any 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.”

thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/345538-opinion-why-its-high-time-rod-rosenstein-recuse-himself

 

[josie_L]

Ignore me then. I think you already are.

I posted an article that said Comey isn’t a person of interest.

Think about it, if he were, is there any justice department prosecutor where it wouldn’t be a conflict of interest?

I think you’re projecting, but moving on, citing the opinion of ONE lawyer does not end the discussion of whether Mueller should recuse himself due to conflicts of interest, I think the fact that I quoted two other lawyers, should suggest to you that this is not a cut and dry issue.

Again, you’re not bothering to read my quotes, but here goes again:

None of this is meant to cast aspersions on Mueller. No one has questioned his integrity. However, this investigation is already being discussed as the possible basis for the indictment or impeachment of a president. There should be no questions of motivation or bias as part of such an investigation. There are roughly 1.2 million lawyers in this country. Indeed, in Washington, you can throw a stick on any corner and hit ten out of the over 50,000 lawyers in the city.

Do you understand what that means, it means that the special counsel does not have come from the Justice Department?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No, he has not recused himself per se, but his role is limited in this investigation and the reasons being:

And just three hours ago said author from the same news outlet wrote:

The author you mean from the Hill.

Ok he’s an expert on Public Interest Law. His expertise is not trial law.

hls.harvard.edu/dept/opia/what-is-public-interest-law/

Mueller has been special prosecutor for almost 3 months.

Rosenstein, in all this time hasn’t noticed the potential conflict of interest.

Legal team trump has also known for about three months that Mueller is the prosecutor. Other than the Fox and Friends interview, where is the motion to recuse?

The Fox and Friend’s interview is a way to tarnish the integrity of both Mueller and Comey.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think you’re projecting, but moving on, citing the opinion of ONE lawyer does not end the discussion of whether Mueller should recuse himself due to conflicts of interest, I think the fact that I quoted two other lawyers, should suggest to you that this is not a cut and dry issue.

Again, you’re not bothering to read my quotes, but here goes again:

Do you understand what that means, it means that the special counsel does not have come from the Justice Department?

I posted the opinion of Richard Painter.

I also posted an article from US News and World report.

Feel free to look up David Kelley, another attorney.

 

[josie_L]

The author you mean from the Hill.

Ok he’s an expert on Public Interest Law. His expertise is not trial law.

hls.harvard.edu/dept/opia/what-is-public-interest-law/

Mueller has been special prosecutor for almost 3 months.

Rosenstein, in all this time hasn’t noticed the potential conflict of interest.

Legal team trump has also known for about three months that Mueller is the prosecutor. Other than the Fox and Friends interview, where is the motion to recuse?

The Fox and Friend’s interview is a way to tarnish the integrity of both Mueller and Comey.

No, it’s not, there is a great possibility for conflict of interest here, because of the obstruction allegations being investigated. But anti-Trump persons refuse to see that.

There is also the matter that people on Mueller’s team are not just Democrats, but Democrats who have donated to Hillary and Obama, in fact, one lawyer also worked for the Clinton Foundation, moreover, the lawyers being chosen are from the Washington D.C. area where support for Trump was at 4%, so yeah, this investigative team is not exactly non-partisan, but hey, I’m just a non-lawyer, who doesn’t understand anything.

 

[josie_L]

I posted the opinion of Richard Painter.

I also posted an article from US News and World report.

Feel free to look up David Kelley, another attorney.

It doesn’t matter because there are others who beg to differ. in the end, however, Rosenstein will have to make that decision if Mueller won’t.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

No, it’s not, there is a great possibility for conflict of interest here, because of the obstruction allegations being investigated. But anti-Trump persons refuse to see that.

There is also the matter that people on Mueller’s team are not just Democrats, but Democrats who have donated to Hillary and Obama, in fact, one lawyer also worked for the Clinton Foundation, moreover, the lawyers being chose are from the Washington D.C. area where support for Trump was at 4%, so yeah, this investigative team is not exactly non-partisan, but hey, I’m just a non-lawyer, who doesn’t understand anything.

An investigative team doesn’t need to be non partisan,

They are in charge of gathering evidence.

Trump is in charge of a defense. The defense can make motions to dismiss any compromised evidence.

 

[josie_L]

An investigative team doesn’t need to be non partisan,

They are in charge of gathering evidence.

Trump is in charge of a defense. The defense can make motions to dismiss any compromised evidence.

Right, those who voted Trump are really comforted by the fact that this team is non-partisan, I guess you don’t care how this looks to them or others who already believe that this is a witch hunt.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Right, those who voted Trump are really comforted by the fact that this team is non-partisan, I guess you don’t care how this looks to them or others who already believe that this is a witch hunt.

Including about half of the investigating team as Trump supporters I guess wouldn’t be a conflict of interest.

 

[dvdjs]

It doesn’t matter because there are others who beg to differ. in the end, however, Rosenstein will have to make that decision if Mueller won’t.

Turley’s begging is a couple for months old. Apparently his opinion didn’t have any traction.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Fox and Friend’s interview is a way to tarnish the integrity of both Mueller and Comey.

I don’t know anything about the Fox and Friends interview, and I don’t know what “tarnishing the integrity” of someone is. But Rosenstein has already “tarnished the image” of Comey.

 

[josie_L]

Including about half of the investigating team as Trump supporters I guess wouldn’t be a conflict of interest.

No, they are not.

 

[josie_L]

Turley’s begging is a couple for months old. Apparently his opinion didn’t have any traction.

Begging, really? You only have to do a search of Comey and Mueller and conflict of interest to see how many others share his opinion. And the article I provided was written mid-June, not exactly ancient, also, I provided another article from the same author written just today.

So what excuse do you have now? That it’s not from the NYT or WAPO.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Arizona Rep. Trent Franks sits on the Judiciary Committee. 5-6 days ago he said Mueller should resign because he is in violation of a code.
azcentral has a story on this.

 

[josie_L]

Oh, and I forgot about the leaks from the investigation.

 

[josie_L]

Arizona Rep. Trent Franks sits on the Judiciary Committee. 5-6 days ago he said Mueller should resign because he is in violation of a code.
azcentral has a story on this.

I saw that in the Washington Times too. Moreover, there are others on the Judiciary committee who also feel this way. I provided a link.

 

[dvdjs]

Begging, really?

Yes. Directly responding to your remark that “there are others who beg to differ”.

You only have to do a search of Comey and Mueller and conflict of interest to see how many others share his opinion. And the article I provided was written mid-June, not exactly ancient, also, I provided another article from the same author written just today.

I have no doubt that there are many who would like to ge Mueller IIi and his team out of the picture,

So what excuse do you have now? That it’s not from the NYT or WAPO. and will use most anything as see what sticks. Thus far, no sticking.

 

[dvdjs]

Arizona Rep. Trent Franks sits on the Judiciary Committee. 5-6 days ago he said Mueller should resign because he is in violation of a code.
azcentral has a story on this.

He is entitled to his opinion, but he is not tnetitled for anyone to take it seriously.

 

[7_Sorrows]

He is entitled to his opinion, but he is not tnetitled for anyone to take it seriously.

I guess the same could have been said of Galileo.

 

[dvdjs]

I guess the same could have been said of Galileo.

It could have, and, on a good day, when would have agreed.
Galileo objected very much to argument by appeal to authority. His work on maechanics carried the day not because it was his opinion but because it was solid science. His work on comets … not so much. Nobody hods to his erroneous ideas, just because they were his. And, btw, nobody rejects his good works because of his errors on comets.