FBI Confirms Probe into Trump-Russian Collusion

[time4fun]

They're appointed by the government, and they answer to the government, and they can be fired by the government.

You're the only one stuck on rhetorical points.

No, they don't answer to the government Thond. The government answers to them.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, they don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, they have sole authority to investigate and prosecute whom they choose, and any government interference is illegal. They're bound to misconduct rules, but if that qualifies as being a part of the government, then congratulations- every lawyer in the country is a part of the government.

[Tgo01]

Lynch specifically took the FBI's recommendations. The whole notion that she didn't formally recuse herself is ridiculous. She removed herself from decision making. You'll recall that it was Comey, not Lynch, who held a press conference on the decision of the Clinton probe. It was the FBI who decided what happened.

And comparing the two situations is likewise ridiculous.

Loretta Lynch had an impromptu, public meeting with Bill Clinton. Anyone who thinks that the two of them would have arranged a public viewing of a nefarious meeting is deluding themselves.

Sessions lied under oath about meeting with a member of a foreign enemy's government, at a time when that government was illegally interfering with our electoral system,and he was a part of the very campaign that was under investigation. There is a reason why Sessions had to recuse himself. He was one of the subjects of the investigations he was presiding over.

I eagerly await your apology, Savageheart.

I also like how in time4fun land the Russian ambassador meeting with a senator in his own office points towards Sessions being a Russian spy, but Bill Clinton suddenly deciding to meet Loretta Lynch of all people while she was on her airplane doesn't point to a conflict of interests.

Again, Savageheart, apology. I expect it. time4fun's own words in this very thread have basically destroyed all of the white knighting you have been attempting.

[Thondalar]

No, they don't answer to the government Thond. The government answers to them.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, they don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, they have sole authority to investigate and prosecute whom they choose, and any government interference is illegal. They're bound to misconduct rules, but if that qualifies as being a part of the government, then congratulations- every lawyer in the country is a part of the government.

And this is where you're getting caught up in the "bigger picture" and not recognizing the details.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, but neither does any other investigator. They don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, but neither does any other investigator. Government interference is illegal in either respect. All Law Enforcement is bound by misconduct rules.

I haven't decided yet if you're just really uneducated on this particular topic, or you've ignored your education. I'm leaning towards the latter, but that's just to give you the benefit of the doubt.

[Savageheart]

I don't understand, why I'd apologize to your or even how I've offended you.

Hold your breath I guess?

What you've put in bold is an actual fact.

[Tgo01]

I don't understand, why I'd apologize to your or even how I've offended you.

Apologize for being wrong, Mr. Wrong.

What you've put in bold is an actual fact.

?

[Savageheart]

Not the first time I've been called Mr Wrong! Take that, oh...

[time4fun]

And this is where you're getting caught up in the "bigger picture" and not recognizing the details.

They don't need permission to subpoena anyone, but neither does any other investigator. They don't need to clear their recommendations by anyone, but neither does any other investigator. Government interference is illegal in either respect. All Law Enforcement is bound by misconduct rules.

I haven't decided yet if you're just really uneducated on this particular topic, or you've ignored your education. I'm leaning towards the latter, but that's just to give you the benefit of the doubt.

*facepalm*

Let's try this once more:

1) A regular person on the street can't subpoena someone for fun. It's exclusively the right of a government agency- generally a Court. A career prosecutor who works for the DOJ can request a subpoena, but that request is subject to their agency's approval. The AG could, if they wanted, step in and say "No. You may not make this request." A special prosecutor, on the other hand, cannot have their request denied by the AG. Or Congress, for that matter. Or even the President. This is a key difference.

2) Career Prosecutors in the DOJ (or one of its composite agencies) make recommendations that are then either accepted or not by the head of their agency. Then the head of the agency submits the recommendation to the AG, who then either accepts it or doesn't. Then, the AG makes the recommendation. At that point the President can either accept it- or fire them. A special prosecutor's recommendations are not subject to anyone in that chain. No one in the Executive has the power to decide whether or not the recommendation goes forward, and no one in the agency has the power to penalize them for the recommendation. This is also a key difference

3) In both of the above cases- neither rejecting a career prosecutor's request for a subpoena nor squashing their final recommendations is considered to be illegal interference. It's considered to be the Executive Branch just going through its typical decision making process. If those things occur when a Special Prosecutor is involved, then it is 100% illegal interference. This is a key difference

4) The point of the misconduct piece is not that Special Prosecutors are the only ones who are bound by misconduct rules, it's that- unlike ANY OTHER career prosecutor in the Executive- Special Prosecutors can ONLY be fired due to misconduct. Career prosecutors can very much be fired for purely political reasons related to their investigations (or just in general) This is a key difference

You're the one who isn't understanding the law in this case. Your understanding of the situation fundamentally requires you to ignore the reason why Special Prosecutors exist. If they were the same thing as career prosecutors- just temporary- then there would be no point in having them. I promise the position was not created because people thought the word "Special" was nifty.

[Thondalar]

*facepalm*

Let's try this once more:

1) A regular person on the street can't subpoena someone for fun.

Correct, only a court can do that.

It's exclusively the right of a government agency- generally a Court.

Well, yes. A subpoena is literally a demand to appear before court...the court requesting your appearance issues the subpoena.

A career prosecutor who works for the DOJ can request a subpoena, but that request is subject to their agency's approval.

False. The prosecutor can request the court to subpoena, but that ultimately rests in the hands of the court in question...at that point it has dick to do with the "agency".

The AG could, if they wanted, step in and say "No. You may not make this request."

Well no, the AG wouldn't have anything to do with that process of it...this is separation of powers. The AG is part of the Executive branch, while the power of subpoena is distinctly within the Judicial and Legislative branches. The AG could take actions after the fact, but that's different.

A special prosecutor, on the other hand, cannot have their request denied by the AG. Or Congress, for that matter. Or even the President. This is a key difference.

This is...misleading. The special prosecutor wouldn't have any request that would be denied by the AG, or Congress, or the President...but under every system we have, or have had, they can still be fired by the AG or President.

2) Career Prosecutors in the DOJ (or one of its composite agencies) make recommendations that are then either accepted or not by the head of their agency.

You're attempting to open a different can of worms, here. DoJ prosecutors try cases in court where some investigative agency, like the FBI, has already presented them with a trial-worthy case...they don't go out on their own digging stuff up and running it up the ladder.

Then the head of the agency submits the recommendation to the AG, who then either accepts it or doesn't. Then, the AG makes the recommendation. At that point the President can either accept it- or fire them.

False.

A special prosecutor's recommendations are not subject to anyone in that chain. No one in the Executive has the power to decide whether or not the recommendation goes forward, and no one in the agency has the power to penalize them for the recommendation. This is also a key difference

Nobody has either of those abilities anyway, "special prosecutor" or not. I'm really starting to think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire process.

3) In both of the above cases- neither rejecting a career prosecutor's request for a subpoena nor squashing their final recommendations is considered to be illegal interference. It's considered to be the Executive Branch just going through its typical decision making process. If those things occur when a Special Prosecutor is involved, then it is 100% illegal interference. This is a key difference

Only the court can issue a subpoena...that part of it comes well after any investigation. Prosecutors, special or otherwise, can make whatever recommendations they want, but ultimately it is up to a grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to move forward with a case.

4) The point of the misconduct piece is not that Special Prosecutors are the only ones who are bound by misconduct rules, it's that- unlike ANY OTHER career prosecutor in the Executive- Special Prosecutors can ONLY be fired due to misconduct. Career prosecutors can very much be fired for purely political reasons related to their investigations (or just in general) This is a key difference

Again, patently false...since they are appointed by the AG, and fall under the purview of the Executive Branch...they can be fired by either the AG or the President, for any reason. I don't like it either, but that's just how it is.

You're the one who isn't understanding the law in this case. To pretend like the rules that a career prosecutor in the Executive are bound by are the same as those a Special Prosecutor are bound by is bordering on illiterate.

I've mentioned a few Supreme Court cases, and quite a few historical examples...all you've offered is "You're wrong because I say I'm right".

I get it...you'd really like this to work the way you think it should work. It is mind-boggling that it isn't really like that.

[time4fun]

Okay, so I think I see where you're getting yourself into trouble.

Subpoenas are not limited to the Courts. The Legislative and Executive Branches issue administrative subpoenas and Congressional subpoenas that carry the same basic weight but without the judicial oversight. That's why you hear members of Congressional Committees talking about subpoenaing the Executive Branch, for example. It's also why the DOJ (and some of its composite agencies) are able to issue subpoenas during their investigations. (The FBI is the notable example here)

The vast majority of your argument falls to pieces at that point. The first four points you made are invalidated by this fact, as is the 9th.

As far some of your other bizarre points:

This is...misleading. The special prosecutor wouldn't have any request that would be denied by the AG, or Congress, or the President...but under every system we have, or have had, they can still be fired by the AG or President.

I already quoted the statutes on this. No one in the Executive Branch can fire a Special Prosecutor for anything having to do with an investigation unless there is blatant misconduct (even then- only the AG has that authority. The President does not. See below). A career prosecutor does not have that protection. I'm not sure how many more times I can quote the relevant statutes to you. This is a very important distinction. Career prosecutors can be fired for political reasons, but Special Prosecutors cannot.

You're attempting to open a different can of worms, here. DoJ prosecutors try cases in court where some investigative agency, like the FBI, has already presented them with a trial-worthy case...they don't go out on their own digging stuff up and running it up the ladder.

I'm not sure what's confusing you at this point. An FBI or DoJ prosecutor can only recommend that a case be taken to Court. The AG has ultimate authority over whether or not that's the case. (Hence why Lynch had to come out and formally say she would accept the decision of the FBI career prosecutors in the Clinton investigation- because cases are only prosecuted at the AG's discretion) A Special Prosecutor, on the other hand, is able to make recommendations that are not subject to anyone's approval in the Executive or Legislative Branches. Obviously the merits of the prosecution is decided by the Judiciary, but even the Judiciary can't prevent the prosecution from happening. They can absolutely throw it out if they'd like, but they can't keep it from going before the Courts.

The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
28 CFR 600

Only the court can issue a subpoena...that part of it comes well after any investigation. Prosecutors, special or otherwise, can make whatever recommendations they want, but ultimately it is up to a grand jury to decide if there is enough evidence to move forward with a case.

So, I've already brought up the fact that the Executive and Legislative Branches can issue subpoenas, but Special Prosecutors can as well. That's why Archibald Cox was fired by Nixon- he issued a subpoena for the White House Watergate tapes. And Nixon was furious. Hence the whole Saturday Night Massacre. (The Courts later determined that it was an illegal firing in Nader v Bork)

As far as the Grand Jury goes- that's still the Judiciary. The point here is that no one can stop the case from going before a Grand Jury. That is authority that rests solely with the Special Prosecutor. Normally, the only other person who can claim that authority directly is the AG. (Though in this case, the AG has relinquished that authority by appointing the Special Prosecutor)

Again, patently false...since they are appointed by the AG, and fall under the purview of the Executive Branch...they can be fired by either the AG or the President, for any reason. I don't like it either, but that's just how it is.

Again, you're wrong. I quoted this once, but I'll do it again:

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal. (emphasis mine)
28 CFR 600

Notice "good cause". They cannot be fired for political reasons. They cannot be fired for issuing a subpoena or for conducting their investigation within the normal bounds of the law. And they cannot be fired by the President under any circumstances.

[Thondalar]

Okay, so I think I see where you're getting yourself into trouble.

Subpoenas are not limited to the Courts. The Legislative and Executive Branches issue administrative subpoenas and Congressional subpoenas that carry the same basic weight but without the judicial oversight. That's why you hear members of Congressional Committees talking about subpoenaing the Executive Branch, for example. It's also why the DOJ (and some of its composite agencies) are able to issue subpoenas during their investigations. (The FBI is the notable example here)

The vast majority of your argument falls to pieces at that point. The first four points you made are invalidated by this fact.

I said subpoenas were issued by the courts that you are to appear before, and that holds true with everything you've posted. The notable exception would be the Administrative Subpoena, which I would argue, along with the ACLU and many others you'd probably support under other circumstances, clearly violates the 4th amendment to the Constitution. Thankfully, this has only been used in a small handful of cases, and everything coming from it still required due process of law before a court...and is not something I would think you would be confident basing an argument on.

I already quoted the statutes on this. No one in the Executive Branch can fire a Special Prosecutor for anything having to do with an investigation unless there is blatant misconduct. A career prosecutor does not have that protection. I'm not sure how many more times I can quote the relevant statutes to you. This is a very important distinction. Career prosecutors can be fired for political reasons, but Special Prosecutors cannot.

This is your misinterpretation of the statute. In practice, they have been fired, by both the AG and the President.

According to the Constitution, this sort of thing falls directly under the powers of the Executive branch. Morrison v. Olson dealt a pretty stinging blow to that Constitutional Authority, but it still remains, at least in part. "career prosecutor" isn't a thing...I'm guessing you mean Federally appointed District Attorneys...yeah, they change out with every new administration. Special Prosecutors are appointed by the AG, and can be fired by the AG.

I'm not sure what's confusing you at this point. An FBI or DoJ prosecutor can only recommend that a case be taken to Court. The AG has ultimate authority over whether or not that's the case. A Special Prosecutor, on the other hand, is able to make recommendations that are not subject to anyone's approval in the Executive or Legislative Branches. Obviously the merits of the prosecution is decided by the Judiciary, but even the Judiciary can't prevent the prosecution from happening. They can absolutely throw it out if they'd like, but they can't keep it from going before the Courts.

And herein lies the ultimate evidence of your lack of understanding of this process.

The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.
28 CFR 600

I never disagreed with this. Once again, you're focusing on the form and ignoring the function.

So, I've already brought up the fact that the Executive and Legislative Branches can issue subpoenas, but Special Prosecutors can as well.

I already said Legislative could...I'd refer you back to the top about the Executive subpoena. Special Prosecutors can't, in and of themselves...they require some sort of body to facilitate it, be it a court or Congress.

That's why Archibald Cox was fired by Nixon- he issued a subpoena for the White House Watergate tapes. And Nixon was furious. Hence the whole Saturday Night Massacre. (The Courts later determined that it was an illegal firing in Nader v Bork)

Oh, well, if nothing else...at least you finally googled that and learned something I referenced 3 pages ago.

Again, you're wrong. I quoted this once, but I'll do it again:

The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal. (emphasis mine)
28 CFR 600

Notice "good cause". They cannot be fired for political reasons. They cannot be fired for issuing a subpoena or for conducting their investigation within the normal bounds of the law.

You should notice "good cause". That's a pretty broad stroke. This statue sets no measures for definition of these things, and ultimately does not restrict the power of the AG at all.