We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
WSJ Urges Regulators to Approve T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

We at CFIF have steadfastly highlighted the consumer benefits of the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger, and cautioned the federal government against any pointless and destructive objection to the deal.  In today's Wall Street Journal, its editorial board encourages the Department of Justice (DOJ) to move forward on the deal:

The Justice Department lost its lawsuit to block AT&T's purchase of Time Warner.  Yet now the antitrust cops are holding up T-Mobile's merger with Sprint even though it could give AT&T more competition in wireless.  What gives?

A year ago, T-Mobile announced plans to acquire Sprint for $26 billion in stock, yet the merger is still stuck in government antitrust purgatory.  The Federal Communications Commission keeps pausing its 180-day shot clock on the merger…[more]

April 22, 2019 • 04:07 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Why Is Mueller Handing Off Key Cases? Print
By Byron York
Wednesday, July 25 2018
The takeaway: These aren't encouraging developments for those longing for a big collusion/conspiracy/coordination indictment from Mueller.

Something has been going on with Robert Mueller's investigation of people thought to have played significant roles in the Trump-Russia affair. The special counsel, assigned to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," has been farming out seemingly important parts of the investigation to offices outside his own.

In April, Mueller referred an investigation of close Trump associate Michael Cohen to federal prosecutors in New York. This month, the U.S. attorney in Washington  not Mueller  indicted Maria Butina on charges of being an unregistered Russian agent. And also this month, when Mueller charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign offices, he immediately turned the case over to the Justice Department's National Security Division for prosecution.

Cohen is a key figure in theories of Trump-Russia collusion. In former British spy Christopher Steele's notorious dossier, Cohen was accused of holding secret talks with Russian officials in August 2016 to discuss "how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the CLINTON campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the TRUMP team more generally."

If that's not collusion, nothing is. Such activities, if they occurred, would be at the center of Mueller's jurisdiction. And yet Mueller handed Cohen off to the Southern District of New York.

Butina figures in theories that a wealthy Russian banker "illegally funneled money to the National Rifle Association to help Donald Trump win the presidency," in the words of a McClatchy report from January.

Again, such activities, if they actually took place, would clearly be in Mueller's bailiwick.

Finally, the indictment of the 12 Russian intelligence agents goes to the very heart of Russian attempts to interfere with the U.S. presidential campaign, the investigation of which is Mueller's responsibility. Yet once Mueller indicted them, he handed the case over to the Justice Department.

What is going on? I asked a few former federal prosecutors if they saw any messages in Mueller's moves. The takeaway: These aren't encouraging developments for those longing for a big collusion/conspiracy/coordination indictment from Mueller.

"I think it proves that little, if any, of what Mueller's team has generated so far is linked to the special counsel's mandate," said Former Prosecutor 1. "Everything that is public so far could, should and typically is handled by either United States Attorney offices of jurisdiction, National Security Division attorneys or even Criminal Division attorneys at main Justice."

"I think Mueller doesn't have anything on collusion," said Former Prosecutor 2. "I think we would have seen it. I don't see anything that looks like there's a crime lurking  maybe he's got eight indictments under seal, but to me, it makes no sense. All of this says to me there is no there there."

Former Prosecutor 3 said the investigations passed off indicate the subject matter is "outside (Mueller's) jurisdiction."

Some former prosecutors drew a distinction between the Cohen and Butina cases, in which Mueller handed off the investigation to others, and the 12 Russians case, in which Mueller made the indictment himself and then handed off the prosecution. That could be because Mueller realized that his team, staffed with investigators, could not manage a complex prosecution in the courtroom.

"They don't have the bandwidth to handle a highly technical case like that," said Former Prosecutor 2. From Former Prosecutor 3: "Good investigators aren't good litigators, and very often the best courtroom lawyers aren't the best subject matter experts."

It has been widely observed that there is no way the 12 Russians  government intelligence officers located in Russia  will ever come to the United States for trial. "There is absolutely no chance any of the Russian officials charged will ever see the inside of an American courtroom," Andrew McCarthy, another former federal prosecutor, wrote in National Review. "The indictment is a strictly political document by which the special counsel seeks to justify the existence of his superfluous investigation."

Other legal types, including yet another Justice Department veteran, said moving the 12 Russians' case to a highly secretive part of the department is a good way to make the case disappear. "If Mueller kept it in his office, people would ask what's going on with the case," said the veteran. "But when he gives it to the National Security Division, it falls off the face of the earth. It's a way of burying it."

Taken together, none of that points to the big collusion/conspiracy/coordination indictment of Resistance dreams. Such an indictment might still be on the way, of course  no one on the outside has a full picture of what is going on inside Mueller's office  but the signs don't seem to be pointing toward it.

Finally, all the handed-off cases raise questions about whether a special prosecutor was needed at all. Mueller clearly felt there was no need for a special prosecutor to pursue Cohen or Butina  and one could argue that the Butina case, at least, was closer to Mueller's core mission than the Paul Manafort prosecution. And if the 12 Russians matter, a case that goes to the heart of the Trump-Russia affair, can be fairly tried by DOJ prosecutors, it's reasonable to ask: Why was a special counsel appointed in the first place?


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2018 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years was the first White House Easter Egg Roll held?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"'The people want someone to articulate their rage for them,' says the fictional network programmer played by Faye Dunaway in the 1976 movie classic Network. She then unleashes on audiences a newscaster named Howard Beale, who electrifies the country with his manta 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore.'Increasingly, voters are plumping for reality-TV stars to express their anger…[more]
 
 
—John Fund, National Review
— John Fund, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

How likely are you to read all or a significant part of the Mueller Report?