DOJ Appoints Special Counsel In Russia Probe

a reply to: Indigo5

You are wrong on the name but correct on being able to prosecute. How about we use the actual directive?

*** PDF LINK *** APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C.§§ 509, 510, and 515, in order
to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure
a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,
I hereby order as follows:

(a)Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b)The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i)any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump;

and

(ii)any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

and

(iii)any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c)If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute
federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d)Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special
Counsel.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Well, regardless of whether he can prosecute, can we all agree this is the best movefor the country?

It's a pivot in the right direction

And yes he can Prosecute..Easy to research for folks..

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Well, regardless of whether he can prosecute, can we all agree this is the best movefor the country?

Ordinarily, I might agree with you, but in this climate, I'm not sure it will make much difference.

I think it might be too far gone and the waters too muddied. I'm not sure that either result will quiet the masses one way or the other.

Who can you trust anymore really when it comes the government?

a reply to: Indigo5

When the authority of a special counsel is defined by the AG / DEP AG not so much. Wikipedia in this case, or VOX, is not accurate.

www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Link to authority given to this special counsel by the Dep AG

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Indigo5

You are wrong on the name but correct on being able to prosecute.

???

I explained that a Special Counsel was the new name for Special Prosecutor..

You said he could not Prosecute..And that it wasn't the same?

WTF??

I was right on both..

a reply to: kosmicjack

Yes....ALTHOUGH after Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed Special Prosecutor and investigated the Obama senate seat pay-to-play...I was left feeling 'meh.' Fitzgerald clearly referenced the Obama team when he said this:

What I should also talk about is that in another event, somebody else approached the governor. And the governor's understanding of this approach was that in exchange for an appointment to the Senate seat, he would receive campaign contributions.

It could only be a reference to the Obama team. But no one seemed to even notice he said that and the media never even questioned it.

And I recall how everyone claimed that Patrick Fitzgerald was a champion for justice. Not hardly.

CNN just reported Comey WILL NOT testify before Congress now that there is a Special Prosecutor. And that Trump insiders say that Rosenstein is having a temper tantrum and throwing Trump under the bus due to his treatment by the administration last week.

LOL! The butt hurt!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Of course the media never mentioned it... They protected Obama from the start. Just like the MSM is refusing to report on Seth Rich giving 44k emails to wikileaks, the refusal of the DNC to allow the FBI to investigate the "hacked servers" or the DNC fraud lawsuit out of Florida that they are losing.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Only one thing to say - CNN.

Won't amount to much. The sooner this is over, the faster we can work on our country.

a reply to: kosmicjack

If the Comey memo is real then Comey screwed himself / whoever leaked it. The FBI director is required by law (2 federal statutes actually) to report an effort to shut down / interfere with an investigation to the AG.

If he failed to do that Comey broke the law.

If he never said it then he screwed what was left of his credibility by going after the guy who fired him out of spite.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kosmicjack

Only one thing to say - CNN.

Does that make it untrue?

Dismissing something simply because you do not like the source is intellectually lazy.

a reply to: ketsuko

Oh the butt hurt indeed abounds, CNN or not, no matter the source.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Third option - There are some anonymous sources who have created some very big whoppers on par with the Dan Rather memos.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kosmicjack

Only one thing to say - CNN.

Does that make it untrue?

Dismissing something simply because you do not like the source is intellectually lazy.

Given CNN's track record on reporting false Trump stories it should be taken into account.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh the butt hurt indeed abounds, CNN or not, no matter the source.

Lindsey Brigman: We all see what we want to see. Coffey looks and he sees Russians. He sees hate and fear. You have to look with better eyes than that.

The Abyss

Raise your hand if that was a Russian water tentacle.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not if he was reluctant to impede the investigation, right? That's the entire point of the memo. To get it on record and still be able to investigate other wrong doing. There must have been bigger issues at play. More serious crimes suspected.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kosmicjack

Only one thing to say - CNN.

Does that make it untrue?

Dismissing something simply because you do not like the source is intellectually lazy.

Given CNN's track record on reporting false Trump stories it should be taken into account.

They've also been correct on many issues.

If we were talking Breitbart or Alex Jones, I would agree, but CNN, even with all of their faults, is not at that low of a level.

We should not dismiss their reporting outright just because they are CNN.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Better dig in. From what I'm hearing g it's going to be a long investigation with no press briefings or testimony until he's done. Could be a year .

a reply to: Sillyolme

It will not be a year, not if the POTUS is actually compromised.