Wednesday, June 19, 2019

BREAKING: Rosenstein Wrote THREE Scope Memos--And Counting?

We all recall the famous "scope memo" that Rod Rosenstein wrote for Team Mueller, which apparently authorized more or less retroactively the jihad against Paul Manafort. Now it turns out there was another scope memo. Or maybe, yet another. A third and counting?

Per Byron York:

Until now, it was widely understood that there had been two "scope memos" from the DOJ to Mueller. Now, it turns out there was a third, as well. 
Rosenstein apparently went on to list several assignments, but only one was not blacked out. In that section, Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate allegations that Manafort "committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law," as well as allegations that Manafort "committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych." 

Yeah, right--more collusion fantasies. Didn't work out, did it?

Now there is more. The Justice Department has recently allowed members of some congressional committees to view the scope memos, and out of that has come the news that there was a third scope memo to Mueller. Dated Oct. 20, 2017, its contents remain a secret. But its very existence suggests something was going on behind the scenes in the relationship of Mueller and his supervisors at the Justice Department. 
Was Mueller heading off in new directions, with Rosenstein belatedly giving him authorization to proceed? Was Mueller proposing to investigate people or events not known when he was originally appointed? Was there something else?
At the moment, the third scope memo, like most of the second scope memo, remains a secret. It is unclear whether all that secrecy is warranted. Perhaps the memos concern matters that are still ongoing that need to remain under wraps. ...

I'll bet Rosenstein had some interesting conversations with Barr! And, no, I very much doubt that there's anything ongoing.


  1. The August memo seems clearly to have been the authorization to pursue Manafort for the old charges as leverage to get him to cooperate on the collusion investigation already authorized by the May memo. I would bet the October memo, if it exists, is the obstruction investigation authorization. I think it might be worth it to see what Trump was tweeting around that time.

    1. I agree re the August memo--it was a retroactive authorization in a sense, since they'd already done the search. It may also have extended the already existing investigation of Manafort. However, I believe the original authorization includes obstruction. We'll just have to see. There could be some other angle to it, although the Mueller Dossier gives no hint that anyone has mentioned.

  2. Just now I finished watching Jerome Corsi's talk on BookTV about his new book Silent No More.

    I think it was on your blog that I speculated that Corsi was not charged because was suffering from dementia. I was absolutely wrong about that (wherever I wrote it).

    In this talk, Corsi tells how Robert Mueller's thug lawyers and FBI investigators tried to compel him to confess falsely that he had communicated with Julian Assange about John Podesta's e-mails. Mueller was trying to prove that Assange, with Donald Trump's collusion, intended to publish, in the final days before Election Day, a series of devastating e-mails from Podesta's computer. Supposedly, Corsi and Roger Stone were the communication links between Trump and Assange.

    Corsi almost agreed to plead guilty to one charge of lying to the FBI. Corsi's plea would incriminate Trump in collusion with Assange. Corsi's story is fascinating, riveting.

    Now Corsi is suing Mueller and his gang for $350 million for pressuring him into a false confession.

    Corsi is a devout Roman Catholic, and his talk includes many inspirational remarks about the importance of his religion to him in this ordeal.

    1. Yes, I recall you speculating on Corsi's mental condition. However, I've seen interviews with him and I agree he seems quite sharp. I certainly wish him all success in his law suit.

  3. I'm just speedballing here, but the October 2018 date would be around the time that the Page FISA was not renewed, so the investigation was taking another tact, e.g. obstruction, and likely needed direction/authorization...

    1. The final FISA would have expired in August, 2017, which means that the decision not to seek renewal would have been made probably by July at the latest. As for obstruction, 28 CFR § 600.4 specifies "The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses." So it's not immediately apparent why Rosenstein do a separate scope memo re obstruction.

    2. Also, check out Mike Sylwester's comment above re Corsi. Corsi's account confirms to me what I've always believed, namely, that while Team Mueller knew there was no collusion, they never gave up on the possibility of framing a collusion narrative for political damage.

    3. I recommend that you watch the video of Corsi's talk on BookTV.

      He thinks that he himself has been subjected to FISA surveillance for several years. When he was questioned by Mueller's gang, Corsi figured that questions were informed by contents of his telephone conversations from years previously.

      As I understand his talk, he got into trouble in October 2016, when he and his wife were vacationing in Italy. (His wife grew up in an Italian family that lived in Argentina.)

      On that vacation, Corsi was thinking about Julian Assange and John Podesta. Simply reasoning about the situation, Corsi speculated that Assange intended to publish, shortly before Election Day, a selection of Podesta's e-mails that would devastate Hillary Clinton. Corsi figured that the e-mails would reveal much about her health and about her pay-to-play arrangements with Russia.

      Corsi communicated his reasoning to some other people, and those communications were collected by the FBI in accordance with the FISA warrant against Corsi. The FBI (and later Mueller) figured that Corsi had to know Assange's intentions not from mere reasoning, but rather from Assange himself.

      Anyway, Corsi's reasoning was wrong. Assange did not release such a set of Podesta e-mails shortly before Election Day. Nevertheless, that was the basis of the interrogations of Corsi in 2019.

      That's how I understood Corsi's talk. I intend to read his book.

      The FBI's treatment of Corsi and of his family was thuggish.

    4. It's possible, although I thought I read somewhere that the FBI got it from one of his emails or texts. Anyway, I've read previously that that was Corsi's reasoning--speculative, not based on contacts--but they tried to jam him up and get him into a plea deal that would smear Trump.

      BTW, I've been out quite a bit today, but the last thing I saw is that Trump made a second statement suggesting that the Iranian shoot down of the drone was done by mistake somehow. Which, if nothing else, strongly suggests that he's not eager for a war. There's also a Bezos Blog story claiming that Trump remains deeply disaffected with Bolton after the Venezuela fiasco.

      Interesting times.

    5. I reviewed Corsi's talk, and I want to clarify two dates.

      Corsi and his wife were in Italy in July and August (not October) 2016.

      Corsi thinks that the FBI began to wiretap his phone calls beginning in 2004, because of the book he published in that year about John Kerry's Swift Boat experiences in the Vietnam War.

    6. I strongly doubt that would have happened in 2004, but in 2016--just about anything seems to have been possible.

  4. Mr. Wauck,

    I've been working late hours and coming home too tired to comment.

    There's a good Twitter commentator who goes by the handle "Rosie Memos." Sad to say that it was only recently that I had the aha moment and realized the meaning.

    Anyway, I read an infuriating article by John Sipher. He is NeverTrump. I found out that he writes for Lawfare, which seals the deal against him in my view. He seems like a jerk.

    I'm with you regarding the five-year term possibly going to Jackson Cosko. Give him as many years as possible.

    I continue to be hopeful regarding our Attorney General. And I agree with Cassander's comments regarding DJT. There is a good Powerline article by John Hinderaker regarding Donald's kickoff rally in Orlando.

    Losing candidates don't have followers who stand in line for 40 hours. I'm not Charlie Cook or Larry Sabato, but I think that 45 is much more popular than the polls suggest.

    I'm glad that you saw Kevin Brock's excellent Hill column. And you have obviously seen John Solomon's article because you referenced it.

    Things may appear to be moving slowly but I think that many leads are being run down.

    1. maybe you'll like this one from the very liberal guardian:

  5. Sorry, I mistyped above using 2018, not my intended 2017--but thanks for debunking it anyways... ;-)

    1. No problem. Actually, as some have said, this third memo is rather a mystery. No obvious explanation so far.

    2. Last night you were commenting re how out of touch with the real world liberals, even educated ones, seem to be. Here's a great example:

      Republican Segregationists?

    3. Indoctrination with The Narrative--from elementary, secondary, through higher education--has worked wonders to make Democrats (the party of the KKK and Jim Crow South), as the champions of civil rights, while Republicans (the party of Lincoln and emancipation), a footnote to history that no one bothers to read. E.g., a higher proportion of House & Senate Republicans, than Democrats, voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the Dems included segregationists.

      My experience has been that anytime you inform someone of the details, they are amazed, but not sufficiently to change their mind--it's seen as a trivial exception and not the tide of history, which they've been inundated since forever. E.g., Speaker Nancy Pelosi's father, Baltimore Mayor Tommy D'Alessandro, Jr. presided over the unveiling and dedication of the Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee statue/monument in 1948. (Removed in 2017)

      Few today are embarrassed by historical ignorance. This is so in part, I suggest, by the PC/SJW mantra: "Everything before yesterday is wrong." It's not important to be historically informed because that history will not be used to inform today's decisions/choices/perspective.

      You could say, ignorance is bliss. Embarrassment and shame find no purchase among the Resistance and opposition; power politics is the rule of the game. And he who holds the power decides what the truth is...

      Sad, isn't it...

    4. "My experience has been that anytime you inform someone of the details, they are amazed, but not sufficiently to change their mind"

      Not sufficient to break the conviction that the tide of history moves with the Democrat party no matter what aberrations are exposed. No other narrative can be considered. Thanks.