ARGH I have no idea where you heard that, t-c, but neither aspect of it is accurate.The Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, during his briefing of the full Senate, has declared that the FBI Russian investigation has moved from a counter-intelligence investigation to a criminal investigation. That means that the DoJ and FBI has found probable cause for obstruction of justice.
ARGH I have no idea where you heard that, t-c, but neither aspect of it is accurate.
** From one of the most complete accounts of what Senator Graham said after the Senate's private session with Deputy AG Rosenstein (boldface mine)
The takeaway I have is that everything he said was that you need to treat this investigation as if it may be a criminal investigation,” Graham told reporters after the briefing from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
He cautioned that he didn’t get to ask Rosenstein to confirm that the investigation, which includes whether Donald Trump campaign officials colluded with Russian officials, [is] now a criminal one.
“It was a counterintelligence investigation before now. It seems to me now to be considered a criminal investigation”....
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/graham-takeaway-rosenstein-briefing-russia-probe-criminal
** A criminal investigation does NOT mean that the DoJ and FBI have found probable cause for obstruction of justice -- or any other crime. As a former career prosecutor, it pains me to see people jump to such conclusions.
Anna, I know there's been lots of this flying around the WorldWideWeb -- and even some banner headlines on, e.g., GatewayPundit & WorldNetDaily trumpeting this "fake news": Comey: Trump never pressured FBI to halt probe.After the discussion with Trump about Flynn, Comey testified under oath that no one had tried to interfere with his investigations.
Let me first venture an opinion: that it's quite probable that DOJ (more particularly, Mr. Rosenstein) has deemed it appropriate to designate the investigation as a criminal investigative one. What I was pushing back against, in this regard, was the proposition that he made a bald declaration to the Senators when there is no proof of that.Lindsey Graham said, "the shock to the body is that it is now a criminal investigation." He qualified later on.
So, what makes them reclassify it from a counter-intelligence to a possible criminal investigation? Is it just semantics or is there actual significance?
I would like to offer a follow-up on this, Anna, but I need to earn a living and head off to my office where paying work awaits ; - )M, I understand your point. Comey could have been responding very narrowly. However, had he thought the President were trying to pressure him, it seems unlikely that he would have been so quiet about it. Even McCabe knew nothing about it. * * *
Who do you think this may be? I'm seeing Kushner mentioned a lot:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.2cb3a25ca94c
* * * Something I'd like Molly to comment on. I thought a special prosecutor was appointed to investigate an actual crime. What's the crime? FBI investigates and offers proof of a crime. Then there's a prosecution. I thought that's how it works.
Prosecutors, as a broad class, don't just take whatever is handed to them by the FBI or their state/local police agencies & stride into court. In every jurisdiction, for example, it's the prosecutor's office that guides grand jury proceedings (which may or may not end in an indictment) and draws up grand jury subpoenas summoning a person to give testimony and/or produce evidence before the grand jury; in many places, search warrant & wiretap applications (which are other investigative tools that may be employed before or after arrest or indictment) are prepared by a prosecutor. Indeed, there are prosecutors who never handle trial court cases; they are only concerned with the conduct of investigations & the assessment of evidence being gathered.On the news stations I watch, they say over and over again that once a special prosecutor is appointed, the investigation becomes very broad. They will look for anything and everything to nail the person being investigated.
They keep bringing up the fact that they were trying to bring down Clinton on a real estate deal and it ended up being Monica that did the deed.
Comey's opening statement for tomorrow (!): https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf
EB thanks for posting this. I can totally see Trump doing all of that. It is something that irks me about powerful people and their expectations to be treated differently than the rest of us. Especially wealthy land developers of which I have had plenty of experience dealing with in my last position in government. The rules should not apply to them because of their status. I would not do it and let the management above me roll over and cave. Thank goodness they backed me and assumed responsibility for it.
Trump can be happy that at least Comey has finally said he was not under investigation personally. LOL. This will be a show for sure tomorrow.
Edit - I am not sure if this proves obstruction if he did not direct Comey to do it. Especially since none of the investigators knew anything about it. I am sure the lawyers will hash all that out. It is totally wrong that Trump stepped in it like this but it does not surprise me reading what he said.
Edit - I am not sure if this proves obstruction if he did not direct Comey to do it. Especially since none of the investigators knew anything about it. I am sure the lawyers will hash all that out. It is totally wrong that Trump stepped in it like this but it does not surprise me reading what he said.
Like I said I am sure the lawyers will have a go at this one. Maybe another "no reasonable prosecutor" moment.It's not just that he didn't directly order it, he asked him, informally, and then fired him when he wouldn't and admitted as much. It isn't as much of a slam dunk as having him on tape saying something like "Just watch me obstruct this justice, Comey, mwahahaha," but it's pretty clear.