“DoJ argues that requisites for appointing a Special Counsel are merely hortatory, that there’s no limit to how the DOJ may conduct itself.” — @AndrewCMcCarthy, III, National Review @NRO
Picture: The Lord High Chancellor of England. “The Law is the true embodiment of everything that's excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, and I, my Lords, embody the Law.” --Lord Chancellor, from Iolanthe, by Gilbert & Sullivan.
Andy McCarthy explained that Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney Generalm wrote two letters in 2017. Before a Special Counsel can be appointed, AG (here, Deputy AG) is obliged to check: (1) There’s a factual basis for a criminal investigation (precise federal crimes that the [accused] is suspected of committing); (2) There’s a conflict of interest that’d prevent DOJ from ethically investigating; (3) an articulation where the AG explains the factual basis for the investigation, outlines what this is. These become the parameters of the Special C0unsel and define the finite boundaries of the investigation, so it cannot become a witch hunt or an “unguided missile.” In each of the three matters, Rosenstein’s memoranda are factually inadequate. One could argue (and DoJ has) these three are merely hortatory and in truth there’s no limit to how the DOJ may conduct itself. “DoJ argues that the happenstance that regulations have been enacted does not create enforceable rights for anyone else.” Congress would not agree. . . . The fourth FISA warrant for surveillance of Carter Page in June of 2017. Four-fifths of that memo is still redacted. Steele dossier – which the FBI, itself, calls “unverified and salacious” — Seems to be the “factual” basis of the FISA warrant. [Egad.] . . . An allegation doesn’t articulate a crime, and assertion thereof doesn't show that something is true. One may allege that a crime was committed; however, mere collusion is not a crime; need a broken federal law. Ergo, it’s still an unknown crime having to do with Russiagate.