‘Rosenstein and Mueller Colluded to Break the Law’

[jimnyc]

And this is why there is a long arm with hunt going on instead of a direct investigation on a specific set of facts and/or crime. Now of course this goes absolutely nowhere, but it's still interesting to know/read.

---

‘Rosenstein and Mueller Colluded to Break the Law’ Attorney Gregg Jarrett Calls on “Unethical Mueller” to Resign After Rosenstein Memo Surfaces

An August 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Special Counsel Robert Mueller surfaced late Monday evening in a court filing. Mueller used the memo to defend his scope of the investigation against a recent motion Manafort filed to dismiss his case.

In the heavily redacted memo, Robert Mueller admits Rosenstein’s order appointing him to Special Counsel was intentionally vague.

“This violates the special counsel law that requires a specific statement of facts to be investigated,” says Attorney Gregg Jarrett.

Legal analyst for Fox News, Gregg Jarrett unleashed on Mueller and Rosenstein on Tuesday, calling for both to resign after they ‘colluded to break the law.’

Gregg Jarrett tweeted: Unethical Mueller, in his court filing, admits that Rosenstein’s order appointing him was intentionally vague. This violates the special counsel law that requires a specific statement of facts to be investigated. Rosenstein and Muller colluded to break the law and should resign.

As TGP’ Joe Hoft previously reported, late last night Mueller and Rosenstein presented to the courts a rebuttal for Manafort’s latest action – they presented a previously undisclosed memo to a federal court in Washington supposedly addressing Manafort’s argument. The problem is it doesn’t.

The memo is dated August 2, 2017 and is from Rosenstein to Mueller supposedly directing Mueller to look into Manafort actions with a Russian operative perhaps before 2016. This however is clearly outside the scope of Sessions’ recusal as argued by Manafort and doesn’t even address Manafort’s argument that these actions are not for Mueller to take or Rosenstein to order but are Sessions actions alone as AG.

Gregg Jarrett also called for Mueller to resign in June of 2017 stating the special counsel has an egregious conflict of interest.

Rest - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/04/rosenstein-and-mueller-colluded-to-break-the-law-attorney-gregg-jarrett-calls-on-unethical-mueller-to-resign-after-rosenstein-memo-surfaces/

[LongTermGuy]

http://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/dirty-cops-mueller-rosenstein-colluded-to-break-law-must-resign-jarrett-tweet.jpg

[pete311]

Here is a response from an actual federal prosecutor, Renato Mariotti (https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti)‏ (https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti)

1/ Gregg Jarrett provides legal analysis on Fox News. Can you spot all of the errors in his 280-character attack on Mueller?


2/ Jarrett is referring to yesterday's response to Manafort's motion to dismiss, in which Mueller revealed a heavily redacted memorandum from Rosenstein setting forth what matters he was authorized to investigate. But Jarrett's attack is full of basic errors of law and fact.


3/ As a starting point, there is no special counsel law. It's a DOJ regulation. Secondly, the regulation does not indicate that the statement of facts be made public, so the private memo to Mueller setting forth the specific statement of facts to be investigated is proper.


4/ For that reason, "Rosenstein and Muller [sic]" did not "collude to break the law." In fact, there is no evidence that Mueller had anything to do with Rosenstein's decision to include more detail in the private memorandum than he did in the public order appointing Mueller.


5/ Even if Mueller and Rosenstein agreed together not to include the names of people and specific factual matters to be investigated in the public order of appointment--and there's no evidence they did--that would not be against the law (or a crime, as Jarrett implies).


6/ Jarrett also ignores the justifications for Rosenstein's decision given by Mueller in the court filing: (1) investigations can be compromised by premature disclosure of the persons and crimes under investigation and (2) it's fair to people under investigation not to name them.


7/ Jarrett also calls Mueller "unethical" in his tweet but does not explain why. Even if Rosenstein did not properly follow the DOJ regulations (and there's no evidence he hasn't), conducting the special counsel investigation would not be unethical.


8/ Jarrett's attack on Mueller is factually and legally inaccurate and fails to take into account what Mueller said in the court filing that Jarrett supposedly read and is responding to. He shouldn't be passing off this deliberately misleading attack as "analysis." /end

[jimnyc]

Perhaps Jarrett is incorrect. But that doesn't mean what a "federal prosecutor" writes is gospel and correct either. Especially one that is running for office as a democrat.

[FakeNewsSux]

Seriously Pete, you are attempting to pass off this "hack for hire' Trump hater as simply a disinterested former federal prosecutor giving his unsolicited legal opinion on Jarrett's analysis?

Renato Mariotti‏Verified account @renato_mariotti (https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti) Apr 2 (https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/980986289217470466)More
I'll be on @CNNTonight (https://twitter.com/CNNTonight) with @donlemon (https://twitter.com/donlemon) at 10:25 pm ET / 9:25 pm CT discussing the latest in the Mueller investigation and the Stormy Daniels lawsuit.


Renato Mariotti‏Verified account @renato_mariotti (https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti) Apr 2 (https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/980930165705531397)More
Tonight I’ll be on @MSNBC (https://twitter.com/MSNBC) @thebeatwithari (https://twitter.com/TheBeatWithAri) with @arimelber (https://twitter.com/AriMelber) at 6:25 pm ET / 5:25 pm CT discussing Sinclair’s attempts to use restrictive contracts to prevent their employees from leaving.


Maybe we'll get his opinion on the black hole that swallowed the Malaysian airliner on his next appearance on the Don Lemon Show

[pete311]

Typical, you guys retreat to your tribalism roots. He's a democrat, so that automatically invalidates his existence.

[jimnyc]

Perhaps Jarrett is incorrect. But that doesn't mean what a "federal prosecutor" writes is gospel and correct either. Especially one that is running for office as a democrat.


Typical, you guys retreat to your tribalism roots. He's a democrat, so that automatically invalidates his existence.

Is that what I stated pete? I wrote it very short, just for you, and you still can't comprehend? I started very clearly by stating it's possible that Jarrett is incorrect, but I'm not immediately going to listen to a Dem running for office either.

But nope, you gotta drop your turds again and ignore what I actually wrote. Seems to ME that I didn't instantly state either side was wrong/right at this point after reading what you posted. And right from my first post I also stated I didn't think this would go anywhere, but it was still interesting.

Seeing what I REALLY wrote might mean you would have to write more than "typical" crap.

[FakeNewsSux]

"Originally posted by pete311
Typical, you guys retreat to your tribalism roots. He's a democrat, so that automatically invalidates his existence.

Oh, woe is me. Someone disagreed with me which makes me a victim. Now anything else they say makes them a bully and therefore invalid. "Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
<span style="color: rgb(62, 62, 62);">
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axE83zcx6wY
Please grow a set. No one derided him for being a Democrat. His points were met with some skepticism due to his raison d'etre as a rabid liberal propagandist.