emptywheel

Hi. I just told you I covered the Libby case, which is precedential in this one. Care to explain why that precedent doesn't govern here?

This is pursuant to special counsel regulation, not IC statute. Review @AndrewCMcCarthy articles on how #Mueller appointment does not conform to statute or regs, a problem compounded by Mueller's precarious expansive interpretation of his own delegated authority.

I litigated this in other contexts, and courts increasingly willing to entertain challenges to indictments outside delegated authorization (task force context, CLE suspended prosecutors, tax prosecutions unauthorized by Tax Division). Govt. tends to settle to avoid appellate risk

Oh. You're still here! I asked you to address the Libby precedent. Care to?

Remember how often the Libby court referenced the clearly "limited" and "discrete" authorization of that appointment. This is what is missing both from the original appointment & subsequent indictments. If they had gone after Libby for tax evasion, court likely dismisses.

Oh hey!! You have read SC precedents! Congrats. Chuck is not as fucked as I was worried about. Good for him. I look forward to the filing where Mueller lays out why hiding that you're working for RU interests relates to an investigation into whether you're hiding working for RU.

But that is, precisely, my point. This is abt forcing Mueller to lay out how hiding that you're working for RU relates to investigation into whether you were pretending to work for RU. A fair defense motion, by all means!

The idea that Mueller can indict anyone for anything he wants simply because Mueller thinks that person might be working for Russia government (of which Mueller has made no such allegation) does not legally excuse indictments that do not come within his jurisdictional limits.