It won’t be until Tuesday at the earliest. Mueller, an exceedingly polite and humble man, wouldn’t want to interrupt Tritler’s viewing of Sid McCrashcup’s televised lovefest, which ends Sunday.
4 Likes
Real enough for several U.S. Attorneys to say it exists and treat it like a rule they have to obey.
2 Likes
Sure, it’s one interpretation of the written rules, but it’s also arbitrary and undefended.
Not to mention mis-stated and abused outrageously by the likes of Giuliani!
1 Like
Eustace! Where the hell have you been?
I miss your batshit crazy.
I’ll add this from Politico (yesterday):
The increased attention stems from Justice Department guidelines that recommend against law enforcement taking major investigative or prosecutorial actions close to an election, so as not to unduly influence voters. Although primaries have been underway for months, Giuliani and others have said the 60-day period before the election should be free of any big activity by Mueller’s team.
But a close read of Justice Department policy shows that the cutoff is not a hard and fast rule, according to more than a dozen current and former Justice Department officials and other legal experts.
Nonetheless, some former prosecutors said they expect Mueller — long known as a by-the-book federal lawman — to bend over backward to avoid doing anything that might be construed as improper right before the Nov. 6 midterms, which will determine who controls Congress for the next two years.
“I know of no Justice Department rule or regulation that limits the timing of an announcement related to an election,” said former Assistant U.S. Attorney Renato Mariotti. “That said … I can’t imagine him taking any action that could be seen as influencing an election.”
And I’ll add this, too:
It’s just over 60 days until the midterm elections. As we approach that mark, there’s increasing chatter about their potential effect on the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Some claim Justice Department policy dictates Mueller not take any major new steps during this time. The truth is much less clear.
There is indeed a Justice Department policy against taking significant prosecutorial actions within 60 days of an election if those actions might influence the election’s outcome. But this is not a formal rule written down anywhere , nor has it been mandated by a court or by Congress. It’s variously referred to as a “norm,” “tradition” or “custom” within the department. And there’s not always agreement about what exactly the policy means or when it should apply.
(Author was an AUSA.)
These two, assuming they left under positive circumstances, will move on to bigger and better things, either with a government agency (once the criminals running things are gone) or the private sector. Spanky’s toadies are not going to do so well.
Kinda like how everyone knows that a person running for the presidency of the United States must show 10 years of tax forms.
Or that one, locked in cement and then gold-plated: that the president must divest him/herself of all businesses and stocks go to a blind trust.
Or that silly one, actually written in the Constitution about emoluments.
Somebody needs to tell Rudy that saying that Mueller can’t do anything during September, October and parts of others has nothing to do with reality.
Does he have credibility with anyone? Would love to watch a debate between Giuliani and Mueller over just about anything.
Also, I wonder if the ominous cloud of worrying about what Mueller is going to do on November 7th might be a get-out-the-vote-theme for Dems, and a real Buzz-Kill for the GOP. The uncertainty of it all may make both sides react more.
1 Like
You really think a by the book, down the middle, straight and narrow guy like Mueller is going to say “oh, that’s just a guideline?” And he’s no naif. Do you really think he doesn’t realize that regardless of what a “close reading” of the guidelines say, if he steps outside the 60 day window, that’s literally the only thing that gets reported, the only focus of efforts to remove him and that the MSM is singularly ill-equipped to deal with acts based on “close readings” that contradict what Everybody Knows?
As a technical matter, you’re right. And it doesn’t make a bit of difference.
My question to you was about the meaning of your “very real,” and I think I understand what you meant, so thanks.