I need to review footnote 5.
5 For that reason, criticisms have been lodged against the practice of naming unindicted coconspirators in an indictment. See United States v. Briggs,514 F.2d 794,802 (5th Cir. 1975) (click here)
USA v. Briggs was decided in a circuit court.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitJun 13, 1975
514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975
18 U.S.C. § 371 (click here)
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
...“The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful functions of any department of government.”...Special conspiracy provisions were retained in sections 241, 286, 372, 757, 794, 956, 1201, 2271, 2384 and 2388 of this title. Special conspiracy provisions were added to sections 2153 and 2154 of this title....
I was looking for the definition of "Special conspiracy," there is this:
Empanelment of Special Grand Juries for organized crime (18 U.S.C. § 3331) requires certification obtained through the Policy and Statutory Enforcement Unit of the Office of Enforcement Operations
This is interesting which nearly exonerates the DOD in arresting Trump when he handed classified information to Russia.
In August 1984, the United States Attorney General and the Secretary of Defense signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the Departments of Justice and Defense relating to the investigation and prosecution of certain crimes. Special attention is directed to the treatment of investigative jurisdiction of corruption, fraud and theft cases. The prosecutor has the responsibility to
- concur before Department of Defense can initiate any corruption investigation;
- confer to determine investigative jurisdiction in all fraud and theft matters; and
- concur before the Department of Defense initiates any administrative investigation or actions during the pendency of any criminal investigation.
The MOU was developed with the expectation that the more complex cases require the joint efforts of the Departments of Defense and Justice. In this regard a repeated theme of the MOU is the prosecutor's responsibility for coordinating and effectuating the various interests of the United States. The Federal Procurement Fraud Unit, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, of the Department of Justice has developed substantial expertise in these investigations and can assist in structuring and conducting the investigations requiring expertise from the FBI and Department of Defense. Questions concerning the MOU should be directed to the Justice Department's Fraud Section, Criminal Division.
The above is a memorandum of understanding between the DOJ and DOD. So, it could be argued that the DOD is also effected, in the case of the president, by the corruption of the DOJ in regards to the prosecution of a president.
It is a nexus between the two agencies of the USA federal government. It is a way the DOD cooperates with a civilian world. In my opinion, the DOD should be the ruling agency when it comes to indicting a sitting president in regard to crimes that compromise USA sovereignty and the mission of the Department of Defense. The DOJ should never be dictating anything to the DOD. NEVER.
I am not going to continue to look for a specific definition of "Special Conspiracy." I am sure it is covered by a Special Grand Jury and probably defined as anything outside the definition of conspiracy. But, this episode of American history with Trump is opening up Pandora's Box. It is a world of interpretation and Mueller never had an easy job. This event of history is not a slippery slope. There are remedies, the problem sincerely is the wrongful opinion of the DOJ in allowing a special status of a sitting president.
AND, the willingness of Barr to lie and allow a conspiracy to grow that would protect the president beyond the law.
Below is the ending statement of footnote 5. Right now, I absolutely hate the "Justice Manual" because it has compromised the USA to be invaded by a foreign power. There is a lot wrong here. A lot.
("The courts
have struck down with strong language efforts by grand juries to accuse persons of crime while affording
them no forum in which to vindicate themselves."); see also Justice Manual § 9-11.130.
The Special Counsel knew what he was looking at. He knew what he was facing the very moment he was asked to conduct the investigation, but, he never wavered.
When is someone going to put Mueller in the Attorney General chair?
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor's accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President's term,
OLC reasoned, "it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment's] secrecy," and if an
indictment became public, "[t]he stigma and opprobrium" could imperil the President's ability to
govern."6
Another lousy opinion.
6 OLC Op. at 259 & n.38 (citation omitted). (click here)
This is another citation that brings an opinion to the governance of the USA (click here)
There are probably a million of these opinions. I can understand how an opinion can define a special moment, but, to have this settled law is completely wrong. These opinions should be ONLY to conduct business that is extraordinary. At no point in time should these opinions ever dictate law that directly effects the sovereignty of the USA. NEVER.
Although a prosecutor's internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report's public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining "that the
person's conduct constitutes a federal offense." Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
The primary concern of the DOJ that failed the American people in regard to Trump is that it could imperil the President's ability to govern. The DOJ does not monitor a person's ability to govern, the USA Constitution defines governance and Article I overwhelmingly hands that responsibility to the Legislature.
Article I, Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
There are three branches of government that are supposed to function in harmony with checks and balances that maintains the status of the democracy of the American people. THE ONLY branch of government that can write laws is the USA Legislature. The other two branches of government concern themselves with interpreting the constitutionality of laws in balance with the Constitution and enforcing the laws written by the legislature. The agencies of the Executive Branch are supposed to reflect the morality of the laws of the legislature and not depart on its own meandering journey through the power of that branch of government. To ensure the Executive Branch compliance the legislature is to conduct oversight of it.
The last part of that paragraph that begins with "Although... is about the freedom the Special Counsel was restrained from exerting. I think it is overrwrought with concern for a president that SHOULD BE ABOVE SUSPICION.
GOT THAT?
All this concern about the president is nonsense. The President of the United States of America should never be the focus of a criminal investigation BECAUSE THAT PRESIDENT IS A GOOD, DECENT LAW ABIDING PERSON.
The people of the USA go through a great deal of expense to provide a counsel to the president to assist her or his judgment in carrying out the business of the federal government. There is no need for special provisions in either the DOJ or the DOD to make a king out of a person in the Oval Office for fear of interfering with governance. In the case of Trump, he committed a crime immediately after he fired the Director of the FBI and allowed Russian influence in the Oval Office to allow A GIFT of USA intelligence. The DOJ oppressed the DOD in acting to end the danger to the sovereignty of the USA.
How could the DOJ put this country in the breach with a man that is a Russian sympathizer? How could the DOJ place our military in the hands of a man that had another agenda than that of the American people? The failure here is that of the DOJ and it's king making determinations.
The man the American people voted for was not a man that would hand USA intelligence to the Russian government, yet that is what occurred. Never should such a person be allowed to consider her or himself above the law. This entire episode is outrageous and is directly caused because the DOJ put the president on a pedestal that compromised the USA Constitution. This is to never happen again. NEVER.
continued in next entry
