Posted on 05/17/2018 9:34:37 AM PDT by Signalman
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz says he has finished his long-awaited report detailing his review of the FBI and DOJ’s Hillary Clinton investigation during the 2016 presidential election.
In a letter to members of Congress on Wednesday, Horowitz does not say when the review will be officially released to the FBI, DOJ and congressional committees.
But the inspector general said he has provided a draft report to the Department and the FBI, and requested that they review it to identify any information that should be protected from disclosure.
A portion of the report on McCabe had already been released to Congress.
In November, Horowitz said his team has interviewed dozens of people and had reviewed about 1.2 million records in the course of its investigation. He said his team was looking at whether “certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations.”
The review also looked at whether the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs “improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign” and should have been recused. That’s in reference to official Peter Kadzik, who had been an attorney in the past for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Horowitz has said the review is looking at whether any DOJ or FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information.
The review has already made a splash.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“I have decided to recuse myself from any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for President of the United States.”
The term “campaigns” includes the Hillary campaign.
The OIG is looking into the investigation of Hillary which occurred during her campaign. The allegation is that investigative decisions were undertaken that departed from normal practice for partisan reasons in order to protect her candidacy.
It has been reported that Sessions’ recusal extends to leak investigations as well as to disputes over redactions and providing documents to Congress.
So yes, it seems clear that Sessions will first see this OIG report at the same time the rest of us do.
What you are saying is Sessions isn’t doing squat
regarding these investigations.
It is the IG doing all the heavy lifting.
A criminal referral was made a month ago
regarding McCabe, yet no indictment.
Where is Lady Justice?
Hi.
In Salt Lake City there is a U.S. attorney named Huber. He has convened a grand jury. Since last October.
I have not seen one indictment yet.
I hope I’m wrong about Sessions.
5.56mm
For what purpose? Sessions did not assign Huber to prosecute anyone connected to the campaign.
“What you are saying is Sessions isn’t doing squat
regarding these investigations.”
Whatever he has been doing, he has been doing quietly.
One thing we now know, is that he has assigned a criminal prosecutor (US Attorney John Huber) to investigate potential criminal activity detected by the IG investigation. That prosecutor appears to have been working no later than November 2017, but very likely by August 2017 or earlier.
There is a debate about whether Sessions is a “white hat” or a “black hat.”
I suggest he is a “no hat.”
He turned in his cards, walked out of the saloon, got on his horse and rode away before the black hats and white hats started getting it on.
I criticized him at the time for his recusal, which was premature, vague and overly broad.
But now he is in a box and just has to wait it out. Having conceded that he has a material conflict and must recuse, if he were to start involving himself in any way in these matters now there would surely be a petition to have him disbarred for violating professional ethical rules.
Also, it has been leaked, even recently, that the Special Counsel has an open investigation into Sessions’ own contacts with Russians and allegedly false statements he made in connection therewith.
Having recused and allowed the Mueller coup attempt to get started, it doesn’t do any good for him to resign now, since McConnell, Graham, McCain and other GOPe senators, not to mention the Dems, have made clear they would not confirm any new AG who is not on board with the Mueller effort, or at least until that changes.
Hope it was painful.
“For what purpose? “
Good question. I know it exists, but don’t know the purpose.
5.56mm
“[Huber] has convened a grand jury For what purpose?”
The obvious answer would be to get search warrants, subpoenas and/or get criminal charges filed.
Those are the main functions of Grand Juries.
The process for the IG requires that any indications of criminal activity must be immediately brought to the Attorney General (AG) - they can not hold them for a final report, or while they investigate.
The AG is then accountable for proper handling of that referral - the normal default response is to have a prosecutor investigate the issue. If a prosecutor finds grounds, he can go to a Grand Jury to approve criminal charges, and prosecute. US Attorney’s already have that power.
That is the normal process, and it is normally done without revealing it to the press/public. Once charges are filed, it becomes public. Visible raids and arrests also make investigations public.
A US Attorney investigates a thousand or so cases per year. A Utah grand jury need not have anything to do with the 2016 campaign.
Grand jury witnesses are not bound to secrecy, so high-profile, politically-connected grand jury investigations always become known.
Upthread, there are links to Huber’s assigned tasks, none of which are prosecutions.
She conspired to cover up her crimes long after she left office, those are chargeable offenses, for starters.
“whether Sessions is a “white hat” or a “black hat.” I suggest he is a “no hat.””
That is the standard that Sessions has cultivated throughout his career as a prosecutor, prior to his political career, and since becoming AG - an objective professional who goes by the book, and let’s the chips fall where they may. Blind justice.
If Sessions just worked strictly by the book, he would have done, what it appears he did do - have the IG investigate, refer any indications of criminality to a criminal prosecutor, and not reveal it publicly (unless required by his legitimate Congressional oversight).
Actually, if Sessions recused himself then he cannot involve himself in referring indications of criminality to a criminal prosecutor. That would amount to un-recusing himself.
This is all Rosenstein’s matter to handle entirely.
I think the recusal is why Sessions treaded so lightly with Huber. He merely asked Huber to evaluate certain concerns raised by Grassley’s committee. He didn’t authorize a criminal investigation.
If Sessions were to appoint a special counsel to commence, or direct another US Attorney like Huber to commence, a criminal investigation into the Mueller team which is criminally investigating Trump (and Sessions) he opens himself to attack that he is violating his recusal or trying to obstruct an investigation into Trump and himself.
Now perhaps Huber might elect to open a criminal investigation on his own. With no direction from Sessions. But Rosenstein could shut that down pretty quickly if he wanted to.
“if Sessions recused himself then he cannot involve himself in referring indications of criminality to a criminal prosecutor.”
He did.
He must have determined that it was not covered by his recusal.
“He didn’t authorize a criminal investigation.”
Not in the letter to Congress that was made public. We don’t know what was said or written to Huber.
As you noted, Huber has the authority to prosecute crimes on his own (and could be liable for failing to do so), no matter how he finds out about them.
In the March 29 letter to Grassley describing Huber’s role Sessions said Huber is “leading an effort” to “evaluate certain issues previously raised” by Grassley’s committee.
He described Huber as conducting a “review” and that Sessions would consider whether a Special Counsel should be appointed to conduct a criminal investigation “at the conclusion of his review.”
There’s no reason from that or from anything else to believe Huber himself has commenced a criminal investigation.
I understand but you know how her legal defense team will position it.
“The original crime cant be prosecuted because of the statue of limitations, therefor any subsequent offenses cant be prosecuted” ... or some such. And then use the appeals process to further run out the clock.
This is a joke, right? Did this come from The Onion?
SOL is tolled by the filing of the indictment, so the appeal process is irrelevant.
Defense counsel routinely throws in SOL as a defense, no big deal. Lots of criminal activity happened after 2013, don’t fret.
And, do we know that no indictment has been filed? It can be filed but not yet served. I’d have to look at the federal rules to see whether there is a time limit in which the prosecutor *must* serve the defendant with an indictment once it’s filed.
Hey, I thought it was kind of cute.
“There’s no reason from that (Sessions letter to Grassley)or from anything else to believe Huber himself has commenced a criminal investigation.”
Please note, although the letter does not confirm a criminal investigation, it also does not preclude one.
It is what you might do, if you were making an effort to not publicly reveal an investigation. Or the kind of thing that any professional prosecutor might do to protect ongoing investigations. Confirm as little as possible, and downplay it.
Sessions did not initiate the exchange - Congress demanded a Special Counsel. He had to appoint a Special Counsel, or explain why.
The explanation in one word? Huber.
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.