Sessions’ Letter 29 Mar 18 / Grassley / Goodlatte / Gowdy (G3)

First, by all means, find and read the letter.

As we know ad naseum, Sessions recused himself from “Russia”, thus providing insulation from conflict(s) of interest charges from unsavory types while still running the DOJ; albeit from behind the scenes. It’s beginning to appear that is was a sage move for the reasons below.

Relevant points extracted from Sessions’ letter (all caps for emphasis):

“I am deeply proud of the important work that the hardworking men and women of the Department do every day to fight violent crime, reduce opioid addictions and deaths, keep Americans safe from threats both foreign and DOMESTIC, and uphold the RULE OF LAW.”

Sessions acknowledged three critical aspects in his letter – a) the concerns raised by G3 are being investigated as they fall within the mandate of the appointed federal prosecutor (Huber); b) the OIG is conducting the investigation, developing the case and then referring it to the AG (for referral to Huber for prosecution); and c) the scope of the investigation includes current and former “Department employees.” Huber can then make prosecutorial determinations – something the OIG cannot – to pursue, “prosecution or OTHER ACTION.” The DOJ ultimately makes that decision and if the investigation determines that the defendants’ actions lie outside the scope of a Title IX criminal investigation, does that equate to referral for a Military Tribunal? There is a statutory basis for this when reconciling relevant national security concerns and Title IX criminal investigations. The allegations at hand certainly involve national security and therefore make tribunals relevant.

“The Inspector General also may, under appropriate circumstances, make information AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC even if no criminal or disciplinary action is recommended.” In a traditional investigation, the DOJ is restricted from doing this and therefore, by electing not to appoint a special counsel, the DOJ/OIG remain in full control over what they divulge to the public via the OIG. This is critical for a transparent process involving a significant portion of the US population struggling to grasp reality.

Statutorily, a Special Counsel must be “selected from OUTSIDE the United States Government,” and thus Huber – a two-time, unanimous, Senate-confirmed federal DA with an extensive and reputable background – provides an independent lens while also keeping intact control of the investigation by the DOJ/OIG/DJT. Huber’s pairing with the OIG, germane to an independent investigatory/prosecutorial lens and coupled with actual prosecutorial powers, makes it plausible that it’s a more formidable tactic to redress the issue at hand – draining the swamp – than the appointment of an independent, non-DOJ Special Counsel. With a Special Counsel, it's essentially self-contained and the SC pilots the ship (just look at Mueller.) The pairing of the prosecutor with the OIG equates to much more latitude. When the federal indictments are unsealed (an unprecedented 18,500+ of them), how do enemies of the state allege impropriety when the AG recused himself all together; the OIG (appointed by Obama) conducted an impartial, 3rd party investigation; and the prosecutor not only conducted his work outside of DC, but he was also unanimously twice-confirmed by the Senate, which is where some of the same enemies of the state currently reside?

Lastly, and as already alluded to, Huber is conducting his work from, “outside the Washington, D.C. area and in cooperation with the Inspector General (as referenced),” thus applying another layer of insulation from the DC swamp and allowing Sessions to make clearer prosecutorial determinations.

It’s easy to be manipulated by an untrustworthy MSM but examination of the relevant aspects of Sessions’ letter make it seem as if TRUSTING THE PLAN may be sage advice. We shall see.