Hidden Russiagate Eggs

Just because it's Easter, it doesn't mean Russiagate stops. A few eggs I gleaned for this morning:

Can Peter Huber Investigate His Boss Rod Rosenstein?

While it is reassuring to note that AG Jeff Sessions has climbed down from the back side of the milk carton, where his missing visage had been hiding, long enough to appoint Utah U.S. Atty. Peter Huber to independently investigate claims of FBI abuses in surveilling the Trump campaign and other matters, one question remains. Can he investigate his boss, Rod Rosenstein’s, commission of a fraud upon the FISA court by signing a FISA warrant application that relied on a fake British/Russian dossier financed by Team Hillary and the DNC?

It is about time we had someone who can convene a jury and subpoena witnesses, but can he and will he present the case mounting against his boss to that grand jury and present his boss with a subpoena?

Some who have long been investing the deep state coup don’t think so. House Freedom Caucus, Rep.Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) exploded on the Ingraham Angle on Fox Thursday night on both the justification for a special council and the Mueller-like conflict of interest inherent in Huber’s appointment:

“When the attorney general writes Congress and says, only under ‘extraordinary circumstances’ do we appoint a second special counsel, well, how about these facts, Laura?” Jordan asked.
“James Comey’s been fired; Deputy Director Andrew Mccabe has been fired; Jim Baker, former chief counsel of the FBI, has been demoted and reassigned; Peter Strzok, former deputy head of counterintelligence, has been demoted and reassigned; and Lisa Page, former FBI counsel, has been demoted and reassigned. If those aren’t extraordinary circumstances warranting a second special counsel, I don’t know what the heck is.

I don't see why not; it doesn't seem like DOJ prosecutors have any problem investigating their boss, the President. In fact, they seem to relish the fame it gets them.

Andy McCarthy has a typically long winded rebuttal to a friends charge that he's falsely accusing Mueller of breaking the law in his wide ranging investigation of all things Trump: Mueller Owes It to Prosecutors Nationwide, and to His Own Cases, to Uphold Justice Department Standards

To recap my argument, Mueller’s tactic of charging sensational offenses and pleading them down to comparatively trivial crimes flouts guidelines that are prescribed in the U.S. Attorney’s Manual and that are followed by responsible U.S. attorneys’ offices. Kerr objects, contending that a provision in the manual that I did not discuss indicates there is more leeway in the guidelines than I let on.

I think he is wrong on this narrow point because the guideline he cites, which applies to non-prosecution agreements for potentially culpable witnesses when time is of the essence, is not pertinent to the situation I was discussing: viz., the plea deal of Richard Gates, who faced two indictments alleging financial-fraud felonies involving over $100 million in the aggregate, but was permitted to plead guilty to minor charges. Before we come to that, though, some underbrush needs clearing.

First, Kerr implies that I see the manual guidelines as legally binding. I don’t, and never have — not in 20 years living under them as a prosecutor, nor in the succeeding 15 years as a commentator. The thrust of my argument is that Mueller is not upholding critical Justice Department “standards” and “policy” (the words used in the column) that are expressed in the guidelines. If the guidelines were binding, there would be little point in arguing policy, as I have done; I would call for court enforcement. But the guidelines reflect internal DOJ standards; there is no judicial remedy for deviations.

 Hot Air covers the difference between Andy McCabe and James Comey "recollections" regarding the leaking of material to the Wall Street Journal: OPR Report: McCabe And Comey Have Different Recollections On Leaks

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report that led to Andrew McCabe’s firing says former Director James Comey recalled that McCabe denied authorizing agents to talk to reporters, something McCabe has since claimed Comey approved.

If you haven’t been keeping up with this story, McCabe was fired by AG Sessions earlier this month, just a couple days before he was set to retire with a pension. Progressives cried foul (of course) but Sessions said the firing was based on two reports, one by the DOJ Inspector General and one by the OPR, both of which found that McCabe had displayed a “lack of candor” about authorizing agents to speak to reporters. Lack of candor is FBI speak for lying to investigators.

Maybe we should change the name to "perjury while being federal" just to be clearer.

Friday, CNN reported that former Director Comey told the Inspector General he did not recall being told that McCabe had authorized anyone to speak to reporters:

Former FBI Director James Comey told internal investigators at the Justice Department that he could not recall McCabe telling him about having authorized FBI officials to talk to a reporter about an ongoing investigation, the sources said…
Another source familiar with the matter argued that the discrepancy between the two accounts is more about the fact that they are recalling the interaction differently than a dispute about what took place, saying both were acting in “good faith.”
“They recall it differently,” the source said. “Andy thinks in good faith he told him, and Comey in good faith says he wasn’t told.”
The source added that “the notion that the two guys are pitted against each other is crazy.”

McCabe’s lawyer, Michael Bromwich, says he has emails (which CNN hasn’t seen) showing that Comey was informed about the leaks. So is this all just a misunderstanding? Are they just recalling things slightly differently? That’s clearly what at least one of these unnamed sources is trying to suggest, but CNN also reports that Comey denounced the leaks in an Oct. 2016 staff meeting and that he specifically recalled McCabe denying that he had authorized these specific leaks.

It's funny how we're being encouraged to overlook the difference in testimony between what were the top 2 people at the FBI, while Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos are being charged with lying to the FBI. I say waterboard them both and find out what they have to offer.

Trump, Sessions relationship takes new turn with special counsel decision

President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have a new complication in their historically contentious relationship: The decision by Sessions not to appoint a second special counsel to investigate conservative allegations of abuse at the Justice Department.

Sessions on Thursday notified key lawmakers on Capitol Hill that he has tapped Utah’s top prosecutor, John Huber, to coordinate with the department’s inspector general — but he stopped short of ceding to demands for a new special counsel, at least for now.

The announcement was a disappointment to some Trump allies in Congress who have clamored for the appointment.

The article is loaded with speculation, but not a single statement from Trump to back it up. It looks like the usual attempt to say the sky is falling the White House is in chaos.