Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger

You have a point, but it is minor. A Special Prosecutor has more leeway from general prosecutorial rules and laws. Among other things he is obligate to make a full report of his investigation to the AG, something that regular prosecutors don't do (Earlier Independent Prosecutors were legally obligated to make a report to congress.) So surely he probably broke no laws and maybe he didn't technically break ethics and rules. But he bent the rules into a large giant pretzel and found a hundred loopholes to drive a truck through. This would make any kind of action against Mueller extremely tenuous and unlikely succesasful. But bear in mind that the real purpose of his investigation was not to uncover "links and or coordination" between Trump and Russia. Its purpose was to find stuff that people might be able to use to get rid of Trump.

I don't think Mueller's situation was anything like Comey's. First Comey was FBI and under different rules than US Attorneys and prosecutors. Secondly Comey found actual crimes but chose not to ask the DOJ for an indictment by rationalizing or redefining on the fly what the law says.

 

Ah...I've always wondered where the laid-off Arthur Anderson and Enron people went to? As far as I know, Arthur Anderson destroyed itself by signing off on phony audits that covered up Enron lies to stockholders.

 

Ah...the difference between simple negligence and gross negligence and the role that "intent" plays in both. Comey made the right call. It was "gross negligence in an early draft, but that required "intent." Clinton's interview came late in the investigation. Following that, it seems that there was consensus on a failure to find intent. That translated gross negligence into "reckless carelessness" (or whatever the term was).

 

Nope it was because of the illegal jury instruction from Mueller's right hand man....the SCOTUS in a 9-0 ruling reserved the conviction....but by then the damage was done because they had to stop doing audits...even though they did nothing illegal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States

 

Why were they even creating drafts before the investigatin was closed...it's almost like they were told what to find....oh wait...they were....Obama jumped on 60 Mins and told the world she did nothing wrong while the inestigation was on going....and Dems keep quiet

 

Weissman apparently led the task force that prosecuted both Enron and Arthur Anderson. He may have erred in a legal interpretation, but the judge gives jury instructions, not the prosecutor.

 

Not unusual to write drafts prior to the end of the investigation. Drafts may be changed. That's why they are called "drafts."

 

Highly unusual to come to a conclusion before you conclude a case...that is unless your boss the president instructs you before hand

 

A massive error. That’s what happens when you are a rogue prosecutor and ignore the law. Judge was wrong too

 

What proof do you have of that accusation?

 

I’ve posted his 60 Mins interview before where he claimed there was no wrong doing in the middle of the investigation

 

The judge would have been the primary person responsible, no? Weissman, as an officer of the court, would have been guilty of giving the judge false information, if that were the case. Apparently, the case was won over a law that allowed auditors to withhold certain information from the government. Anderson argued that they were then "legally" destroying this information, which the government had no right to, but had ordered them to preserve. Evidently, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision by a 9-0 vote, saying that as long as the destruction of such information was in line with Anderson's document retention and destruction plan, they were permitted to destroy the information. I assume that while the case was in work, Anderson was suspended from doing business. But, whether it was that or the damage to their reputation by buying into Fastow's financial statements is probably a toss-up. If I remember correctly, Fastow was hiding Enron losses in off-balance sheet subsidiaries.

 

Which investigation?

 

Yes the Court is the ultimate say, but Mueller’s guy gave the court the illegal jury instruction

 

The one into Clinton

 

Not sure how that works...I thought that was the judge's responsibility, neither the prosecution or the defense.

 

I don't think Weissman was a part of the Clinton investigation and Mueller wasn't appointed until after the FBI's "no indictment" recommendation.

 

No the prosecutors and defense offer jury instructions

 

Perhaps, through the judge.

 

No but comey was and that’s why they were drafting the conclusions and editing them prior to the investigation being over.

a President and DOJ that truly prevented the Rule of Law

 

RodB, the elements of the threat were met: end of your argument. The letter of authorization carefully meets the statute. In no way is it invalid. You are wrong in law.

Ddyad, the sentence validates the Judge’s evaluation, and Trump had not a clue what was valid or not.

Struth, yes, Muller said that Trump was not exonerated, and you know that eleven (11) OOJ charges are on the table for the income Dem AG.​

No jury misconducted has been proved, and the evidence was sufficient for conviction.

Comey and McCabe should not be indicted, and those who suggest otherwise should be sued for criminal libel by the government.

 

Comey explained that...the Clinton interview was one of the last investigative actions taken. Short of a confession, they had no way to prove her "intent" to break the law...ergo "gross negligence" was changed to "reckless carelessness" (or something similar, which was non-indictable). What is your proof regarding your accusations?

 

Correct they offer them to the judge and then given the jury. The judge should have kicked it for sure, the judge too made a mistake.

 

The Mueller report never concluded there were 11 OOJ charges, but the House exonerated him when they reviewed and took no action to impeach.

no the jury misconduct will come up on appeal

McCabe will likely miss being indicted since it’s pretty clear his cooperating with Durham since the DOJ passed up on using the IG report showed he lied to federal agents.

 

The 60!Mins interview I’ve provided you, Lisa Pages testimony where she said they were instructed by the DOJ they wouldn’t prosecute as well.

gross negligence doesn’t require an intent, just gross negligence