Originally Posted by patteeu:
You mean getting the rules of the process straight? No, I don't see why it would.
Ok you just meant to clarify the scope?
I think there were some reports to the effect that Rosenstein specifically limited them in several important ways including not being allowed to look at finances, even though that is normally one of the most important investigate tools when going up against wealthy and powerful people.
[Reply]
Originally Posted by banyon:
Ok you just meant to clarify the scope?
I think there were some reports to the effect that Rosenstein specifically limited them in several important ways including not being allowed to look at finances, even though that is normally one of the most important investigate tools when going up against wealthy and powerful people.
The AG (or in this case, the DAG) specifies the scope of the investigation. I assume that would include whether or not to look into the finances. I'm talking about whether or not the final product of the investigation should include identifying crimes that if not for the memo's constraint against actual prosecution would be prosecutable. Instead of punting on that issue completely.
[Reply]