An August 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to Special Counsel Robert Mueller surfaced late Monday evening in a court filing. Mueller used the memo to defend his scope of the investigation against a recent motion Manafort filed to dismiss his case.
In the heavily redacted memo, Robert Mueller admits Rosenstein’s order appointing him to Special Counsel was intentionally vague.
“This violates the special counsel law that requires a specific statement of facts to be investigated,” says Attorney Gregg Jarrett.
Legal analyst for Fox News, Gregg Jarrett unleashed on Mueller and Rosenstein on Tuesday, calling for both to resign after they ‘colluded to break the law.’
Gregg Jarrett tweeted: Unethical Mueller, in his court filing, admits that Rosenstein’s order appointing him was intentionally vague. This violates the special counsel law that requires a specific statement of facts to be investigated. Rosenstein and Muller colluded to break the law and should resign
As TGP’ Joe Hoft previously reported, late last night Mueller and Rosenstein presented to the courts a rebuttal for Manafort’s latest action – they presented a previously undisclosed memo to a federal court in Washington supposedly addressing Manafort’s argument. The problem is it doesn’t.
The memo is dated August 2, 2017 and is from Rosenstein to Mueller supposedly directing Mueller to look into Manafort actions with a Russian operative perhaps before 2016. This however is clearly outside the scope of Sessions’ recusal as argued by Manafort and doesn’t even address Manafort’s argument that these actions are not for Mueller to take or Rosenstein to order but are Sessions actions alone as AG.
Gregg Jarrett also called for Mueller to resign in June of 2017 stating the special counsel has an egregious conflict of interest.
In a previous Fox News column, Jarrett stated:
The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.
If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.
The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.
The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.
So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend.