Posted on 03/31/2018 12:06:10 PM PDT by Starman417
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.House Freedom Caucus Chairman Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) echoed Jordan’s sentiment, reciting his mistrust of anything the DOJ, which has been dragging its feet in cooperating with House investigations, says or does: :“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.
“So I don't know why the attorney general keeps postponing this,” Jordan continued. “Everyone in town knows we need a second special counsel to get to the bottom of this. How can Mr. Huber -- he's probably a great lawyer, I don't know much about Mr. Huber from Utah -- but how can he investigate his boss, Rod Rosenstein? That's who he reports to.
“I disagree with the attorney general, and I can tell you tonight, I went through and reviewed some redacted things that were given to our committee, and on seven pages, there were 12 material facts -- material facts, not just names -- material facts that were omitted by the Department of Justice,” Meadows said.Former House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz noted in a tweet:“It's time that they come clean and give Congress what we need,” he continued. “When we look at the multiple reactions that have taken place, this Department of Justice is not complying with the subpoena and with the oversight responsibility we have in Congress. For the attorney general to suggest that there is not enough there is just extremely disappointing.”
Rosenstein is asking Huber to do something that's unfair and inappropriate. You're asking Huber to investigate his boss.It can be said that Huber’s appointment has all of the advantages of a special counsel and none of the disadvantages. Sessions can fire Huber if he strays off the reservation or just doesn’t do his job properly. But would he? Sessions is the man who recused himself from the Russian collusion investigation when he didn’t have to. This is the AG who had to be dragged kicking to this point despite evidence a first-year law student couldn’t ignore. This is the AG who fought to prevent the FBI informant in an earlier FBI investigation into Russian attempts to gain access to U.S. nuclear resources such as uranium, an investigation in which both Mueller and Rosenstein were up to their eyeballs.
Rod Rosenstein misled the FISA court and signed off on the FISA application to spy on Trump’s campaign advisor Carter Page, actions documented in the four-page House Intelligence Committee memo:
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...
If by sheer chance someone named Clinton gets swept up in a Huber or Mueller dragnet, will they be able to claim they were witch-hunted by their own political allies? Would that be important for how the American people view the fairness of the investigations?
How far into the Trump administration are we gonna get before some people get the message that just maybe some serious thought and planning went into planning a strategy for draining the swamp, prior to 20170120?
Sure.
All sorts of investigations are going on. None of them will result in significant justice.
The fixes are most abundantly in.
The statute of limitations for criminal conspiracies never run out.
A criminal conspiracy is an ongoing crime, especially under the RICO statutes. Every time a new RICO predicate act is committed, the10-year statute of limitations restarts.
30D Chess.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf
is force a necessary element of seditious conspiracy? I believe it is but I am not an attorney.
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Breaking it down:
1. conspire to overthrow
2. put down
3. destroy by force
4. levy war
5. oppose by force
6. by force prevent, hinder, delay execution of law
7. by force seize, take, possess any property
Number 2 above, the meaning of “put down” is to stop.
The element that best applies to the conspirators against the Trump Administration is number 1, followed by number 2. The characterization that describes the sedition is “soft coup”.
I have misspoke. I think I confused Huber and Horowitz. I believed Huber had a hand in blowing the whistle on Holder and either i was mistaken or it’s been scrubbed. I can source Horowitz and his actions in the matter though.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/sedition.html
....In order to get a conviction for seditious conspiracy, the government must prove that the defendant in fact conspired to use force.....
An opinion from Findlaw is just that, an opinion.
The writer there correctly cites the statute but then gloms together what he/she thinks is required as an opinion. What is glommed is a concatenation of statute elements. The elements stand alone and separated.
Sedition and treason are related. The latter pertains to those that owe allegiance to the United States, in particular, those that take an oath such as FBI agents and US Attorneys. Aaron Burr was charged with treason and would have been convicted had it not been for a presidential intercession. Burr used no force but conspired with a foreign government to use force. The coup plotters today conspired to use the force of the FISA court to act against the President. Treason is related but more serious than sedition because oaths were taken.
Many of those presently staging a coup against the Trump Administration which is like it or not a large component of the United States government, are guilty of treason and sedition. May are also guilty of misprision of treason and all are guilty of subversion.
Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards or resistance against lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition. Two or more persons promoting an interest in sedition are a seditious conspiracy.
The coup plotters that are presently in the crosshairs of an investigation will be charged with subverting the Constitution, charged with violating the Constitution, specifically the 4th amendment rights of persons associated with the Trump campaign and the Trump Administration. Violation of the Constitution with the goal of overthrowing a duly and lawfully elected President is foundational to seditious conspiracy in this case.
In short, the coup platters can dream all they want to escape charges of treason, sedition, subversion because of their hope and reliance that no ‘force’ was engaged when in fact force was engaged. Through fraudulent subversive acts, the coup plotters used the force of the FISA court to violate the constitutional protections of persons of the Trump Administration and Campaign. They deliberately sought and still seek a pretext to charge the President with obstruction of justice thereby rendering his presidency impotent. Whether or not Donald Trump is ever impeached or removed, the acts of the coup plotters violated his constitutional protections and are aiming to stop him. That is sedition, that is subversion, and for those that took oaths, that is treason.
in practice a law or word means what a judge or judges say it means at the time they decide it. example under 18 usc 242 it used to say "inhabitant" and was changed to " any person in any state" because 3 different courts had different opinions. Would you consider an illegal alien who just crossed the border a few minutes ago to be an inhabitant?
A judge ruled that was the case.
here is a court opinion
2384.
....As Section 2384 proscribes “speech” only when it constitutes an agreement to use force against the United States, Abdel Rahman's generalized First Amendment challenge to the statute is without merit. Our court has previously considered and rejected a First Amendment challenge to Section 2384. See United States v. Lebron, 222 F.2d 531, 536 (2d Cir.1955).....
.... The prohibitions of the seditious conspiracy statute are much further removed from the realm of constitutionally protected speech than those at issue in Dennis and its progeny. To be convicted under Section 2384, one must conspire to use force, not just to advocate the use of force. We have no doubt that this passes the test of constitutionality........
..........There is indeed authority suggesting that the word “seditious” does not sufficiently convey what conduct it forbids to serve as an essential element of a crime. See Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 598, 87 S.Ct. 675, 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967) (noting that “dangers fatal to First Amendment freedoms inhere in the word ‘seditious,’ ” and invalidating law that provided, inter alia, that state employees who utter “seditious words” may be discharged). But the word “seditious” does not appear in the prohibitory text of the statute; it appears only in the caption. The terms of the statute are far more precise. The portions charged against Abdel Rahman and his co-defendants-conspiracy to levy war against the United States and to oppose by force the authority thereof-do not involve terms of such vague meaning. Furthermore, they unquestionably specify that agreement to use force is an essential element of the crime. Abdel Rahman therefore cannot prevail on the claim that the portions of Section 2384 charged against him criminalize mere expressions of opinion, or are unduly vague........
from United States v Rahm
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1011788.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.