quote:

Originally posted by dusty3030:
I finally got to see President Trump live today. Ollie North gave the invocation. VP Pence spoke and then President Trump. I have never been so fired up about being an American as I am today. They held back nothing, pulled no punches, danced around no issues. No BS, all spoke with conviction...

I also watched earlier today, what a breath of fresh air.

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F-uZrsJtt0


Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGe_kruSFEg

Devin Nunes has received a less redacted version of the full House Intel report.

parts of that:

images upload



With the less redacted version of the House report out, here is an important item that hasn't gotten much publicity:

The FBI was looking at Papadopoulos, Carter Page, and Manafort but they never told the Trump campaign. The FBI briefed the campaign on counterintelligence in August 2016 but only addressed general issues.

Note that the FBI opened their investigation late July 2016. They never warned Donald Trump.

Comey briefed the National Security Council about Carter Page in late spring 2016. (The Russians had tried (unsuccessfully) to recruit Page in 2013. The FBI told Carter Page the Russians he was talking to were actually spies. Page didn't know that. The Russian spies said that Page was an idiot in their private converfsations). But Comey never warned Donald Trump.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sdy,

https://www.defense.gov/News/A...one-replaces-rogers/

ADM Rogers retires as Director of NSA.

New NSA Director is Army Gen. Paul M. Nakasone

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:
How is it that none of these attorneys are being disbarred for their legal shenanigans? Or is that coming yet?

Conviction of a crime would likely accomplish that. Ordinarily, the disciplinary boards will wait until that is either done, or no longer likely, to avoid undue prejudice to the prospective defendant.

A great deal depends on which rules the lawyer is alleged to have violated, how inambiguous the conduct, etc. Embezzling trust funds is very serious, unambiguous and simple to prove. Conviction of crime is, too. Other potential violations can be obscure, uncertain and hard to gather satisfactory proof.

Disbarment is not the only discipline. Suspension for awhile, a fine, sentence to dozens of hours of ethics training, letters of reproval, etc. are less severe.

Manafort Lawyers Claim Leaky Mueller Probe Has Provided No Evidence Of Contacts With Russian Officials

The alleged lack of evidence would be in sharp contrast to the repeated leaks from anonymous but highly placed government officials that led to the appointment of a special counsel.

Mollie Hemingway
Federalist

In a new filing demanding a full hearing on what Paul Manafort’s lawyers say is a series of illegal governmental leaks about his case, his legal team also reveals the government has provided no evidence of any contact between Manafort and Russian officials.

The special counsel’s office says it has no evidence in its possession responsive to Manafort’s request for transcripts, notes, or tapes of any and all conversation or contacts between Russian intelligence or government officials and Manafort, according to the filing.

This revelation, and the series of potentially false and illegal leaks from myriad government officials claiming they had such evidence, call into question the legal basis of Mueller’s probe of Manafort, which was ostensibly launched to ferret out illegal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and foreign officials, Manafort’s attorneys say.

Despite multiple requests to provide any evidence detailing contacts between Russian officials and Manafort, “the Special Counsel has not produced any materials to the defense — no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials (or any other foreign officials),” the filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Virginia says. “The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort’s requests.”

“Accordingly, if the representations of the Special Counsel are accurate, and there is not, in fact, any evidence of communications between Mr. Manafort and foreign officials, then the perpetrators of this elaborate hoax must be identified and punished and the substantial unfair prejudice to Mr. Manafort must be remedied,” the filing continued.

The alleged lack of evidence would be in sharp contrast to the repeated leaks from anonymous but highly placed government officials claiming Manafort was in contact with Russian government officials and that these contacts were picked up by federal surveillance efforts. The Manafort filing includes a selected list of some of the many high-level leaks from government officials about his case. These leaks come out of surveillance, grand jury proceedings, FBI investigations, and the special counsel.

Law enforcement and intelligence sources leaked pre-election news of a preliminary FBI inquiry into Manafort’s foreign business connections, according to an October 31, 2016, NBC News story.

Phone records and intercepted calls show repeated contact between Trump associates and senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials who were leaking secretly to The New York Times because they said the investigation was classified. The article was illustrated with a picture of Manafort and claimed, “The officials said that one of the advisers picked up on the calls was Paul Manafort.”

The article said the National Security Agency captured the calls as routine foreign surveillance and that, after that, the FBI asked the NSA to collect as much info as possible on the calls as well as search through previously intercepted communications. The story claimed that the FBI’s investigation of Manafort “began last spring as an outgrowth of a criminal investigation into his work for a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine and for the country’s former president, Viktor F. Yanukovych. It has focused on why he was in such close contact with Russian and Ukrainian intelligence officials.” It also said that the FBI didn’t have enough evidence to obtain a wiretap against Manafort but had the NSA scrutinize his communications with Ukrainian officials.

“Before signing up with Donald Trump, former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to “greatly benefit the Putin Government,” the Associated Press reported on March 22, 2017. It said the knowledge came from “people familiar with the relationship” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the secret payments publicly.” It further said that Manafort was a leading focus “of the U.S. intelligence investigation of Trump’s associates and Russia, according to a U.S. official” who “spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the investigation are confidential. It said that federal prosecutors had been interested in Manafort’s activities for years.

The Associated Press also reported on March 23, 2017, an “Exclusive: US Probe of Ex-Trump Aide Extends to Cyprus,” which quoted “a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly” related to a “request from the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.” An April 12, 2017, Associated Press report was based on access to the records from that Treasury Department request.

Someone with knowledge of the special counsel’s scope told the Associated Press that the inquiry into the Trump campaign and the Russian government was taking over a criminal probe of Manafort, according to the June 3, 2017, story, “Special Counsel’s Trump Investigation Includes Manafort Case.” The person who described the “expansiveness of Mueller’s investigation” to the AP was the first to leak, the story said, “because revealing details could complicate its progress.”

CNN reported on August 4, 2017, that “One Year Into the FBI’s Russia Investiation, Mueller Is On The Trump Money Trail.” In this story, “current and former U.S. officials briefed on the investigation” said that “intelligence agencies noticed a spate of curious contacts between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian intelligence.” They turned up “intercepted communications appearing to show efforts by Russian operatives to coordinate with Trump associates on damaging Hillary Clinton’s election prospects, officials said. CNN has learned those communications included references to campaign chairman Paul Manafort.” The story also calimed that “The suspect operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Mr. Manafort, encoraging help from the Russians.”

The filing with the U.S. District Court mentioned many other leaks, such as those from government sources on the eve of the special counsel filing superseding indictments against Manafort.

“G]overnment sources are specifically identified as such in the news articles, and even when they are not, it is abundantly clear that the leakers are current or former government officials with personal knowledge of the matters reported,” the filing notes.

The leaks from government sources claimed evidence of Manafort’s involvement with Russians, including intercepted phone calls. Yet the special counsel has told Manafort’s attorneys that there are no such intercepts, they say in the court filing.

“Of course, the natural implication of this is that these government leaks were intentionally designed to create a false narrative in order to garner support for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate Mr. Manafort for purportedly coordinating with Russian intelligence/government officials despite the lack of any such evidence,” the filing claims.

Without original jurisdiction to investigate Manafort, the special counsel has “no lawful authority or jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute Mr. Manafort” for the matters it has, they say. Further, the leaks “were clearly intended to unfairly prejudice the jury pool” against Manafort and deprive him of due process and an impartial jury.

The many media articles claim multiple government officials confirmed repeated contact between the Trump campaign (including Manafort), Trump associates, and Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, the filing notes. “The false impressions created by this baseless narrative would reasonably cause grand jurors or future potential trial jurors to speculate” that Manafort is involved in nefarious conduct.

If there is no evidence of the communications, contrary to what government sources claimed when they were leaking, “then the perpetrators of this elaborate hoax must be identified and punished and the substantial unfair prejudice to Mr. Manafort must be remedied,” the filing claims.

Mueller’s office has not yet responded in court to the latest motions from Manafort’s legal team.

Link

This is further guidance on what the issues in the hearing on Friday in which the judge demanded the scope memo authorizing Mueller’s investigation.

Some will be interested in this twitter thread about the hearing in the Manafort case. The tweeter got a transcript of the hearing and has organized and added his comments etc.

For some this is too far into the weeds, as the saying goes.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Tec...s/992816969106841601

I would love to get the whole transcript of that hearing.

Edit to Add: Bingo. Here it is.

And Now for Something Completely Different. . .

President Trump as Bravehart!

Enjoy!
__________

I just read the full transcript w Judge Ellis also. I found it here:

https://www.scribd.com/documen...ullscreen&from_embed

While it is 48 pages, it is a very fast read and very interesting. I thought Manafort's lawyer did well and the full transcript even further enforces how unhappy Judge Ellis was w the special counsel.

Hard to summarize. If you have the time, it is worth a quick read.

Judge rejects Mueller's request for delay in Russian troll farm case
Politico


A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case.

The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings.

Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management. POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information.

On Friday, Mueller’s prosecutors disclosed that Concord’s attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, had made a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details about the case and the investigation. Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week.

The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success.

“The [U.S.] government has attempted service of the summonses by delivering copies of them to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, to be delivered to the defendants,” prosecutors wrote. “That office, however, declined to accept the summonses. The government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government’s knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service.”

Mueller’s team sent a copy of the formal summons to Dubelier and Seikaly and asked them to accept it on behalf of Concord Management, but Dubelier wrote back on Monday saying that the government’s attempt to serve the summons was defective under court rules. He did not elaborate.

The three companies named in the indictment are all reported to be controlled by a Russian businessman known as Russian President Vladimir Putin's "chef," Yevgeny Prigozhin. He's also one of the 13 individuals criminally charged in the case.

In their request on Friday to put off the arraignment, prosecutors included the extensive demands for information that the lawyers for Concord Management have set forth since they stepped forward last month.


“Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained,” attorneys Jeannie Rhee, Rush Atkinson and Ryan Dickey wrote. “That is especially true in the context of this case, which involves a foreign corporate defendant, controlled by another, individual foreign defendant, that has already demanded production of sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs information.”

The Mueller team proposed that both sides file briefs in the coming weeks on the issues of whether Concord has been properly served.

In a blunt response Saturday morning, Concord's attorneys accused Mueller's team of ignoring the court's rules and suggesting a special procedure for the Russian firm without any supporting legal authority.

"Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery," Dubelier and Seikaly wrote.

The Concord lawyers said Mueller's attorneys were seeking "to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court" by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel's office has not replied at all to Concord's discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel's office to turn over records related to the case.

Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon.

The indictment, obtained by Mueller but announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, accused the defendants of mounting an “information warfare” operation in connection with the 2016 election.

The IRA, long suspected of ties to the Kremlin, allegedly used social media, email and other means to manipulate “unwitting” American citizens and Trump campaign officials into protests, demonstrations and the recirculation of media messages. Most of the interventions were intended to benefit Trump or demean his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, the indictment alleged.

Link

This report is associated w the case discussed above in JALLEN's post

https://www.redstate.com/strei...profile-indictments/

The report argues that Mueller did not expect the charges against the Russians for computer crimes to ever come to trial.

"The thirteen Russians were never going to be caught. Two of the three companies were already under US sanctions and not likely to worry a whole lot about a US indictment. Mueller got the press. No work was involved. All is good."

"Then in April, the most amazing thing happened. One of the indicted companies informed Mueller that it had retained US counsel and would see him in court."

Eric Dubelier of Reed Smith, who represents Concord Management and Consulting LLC, has posed dozens of questions to Mueller’s prosecutors, demanding detailed information about how prosecutors built their case and the identity of all witnesses and cooperators.

According to a filing Friday in federal court in Washington, Dubelier even wants prosecutors to catalog U.S. efforts to influence foreign elections around the world since 1945.

They are also demanding their right to a speedy trial.

This is how a competent legal team attacks a case that is built upon allegedly secret information. Keep in mind, Mueller’s team is not above lying to the court when it serves their purpose. They claimed that Manafort was in contact with Russian intelligence operatives in 2016 but when require to produce the evidence that supported that claim they admitted there was none. Mueller will either have to provide the defense with the information upon which they based an indictment or there is no case

***************

https://www.redstate.com/strei...ussian-intelligence/

from a Manafort legal team filing:

images hosting

That is beautiful.

What is all this talk this morning about Nunes wanting to hold the DOJ in contempt? Did I miss something? Or are they just refusing to hand over documents (again)?

quote:

The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to Mr. Manafort’s requests.

This is pure Andrew Weissman. Weissman was on the Enron prosecution team, and I believe involved in the prosecution of Sen. Stevens, where abuses of the Brady Rule, and pre-trial discovery, was raised to an art form.

There are some weasel worded “justifications” lurking in this, I bet.

Weissman holds the dubious distinction of having convictions reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

quote:

Weissman holds the dubious distinction of having convictions reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Well that's something to be proud of. Not every day that happens lol.

No wonder why Mueller put him on the team.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
What is all this talk this morning about Nunes wanting to hold the DOJ in contempt? Did I miss something? Or are they just refusing to hand over documents (again)?

From Sarah Carter:

quote:

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes revealed Sunday that Congress will hold Department of Justice Attorney General Jeff Sessions in contempt for refusing to turn over classified information the committee has requested, he stated in a phone interview with Fox and Friends.

The Department of Justice also shot back on Sunday, released the letter sent to Nunes on May 3, which addressed the classified information Nunes had requested. It appears from the letter Nunes had asked for information on a specific individual, not yet named and considered by DOJ to be a very valuable person for a counterintelligence operation.

“Disclosure of responsive information to such requests can risk severe consequences, including potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities,” stated the May, 3 letter from Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd.

But Nunes is not buying it. He warned Sessions that ignoring deadlines requested by Congress will result in contempt. Nunes also referred to comments lambasting Special Counsel Robert Mueller by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, who said in a Virginia Federal Court Friday, “we don’t want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants…The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power.”

“The only thing left that we can do is we have to move quickly to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt…”

Nunes noted that two weeks ago, the committee sent a classified letter to Sessions and “per usual it was ignored… last week we sent a subpoena and we got a letter stating they are not going to comply with our subpoena on very important information that we need.”

“The only thing left that we can do is we have to move quickly to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt and that’s what I’m going to press for this week,” Nunes said.

Boyd stated that Nunes’ request had been reviewed by all agencies, including the White House.

“After careful evaluation and following consultations with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the White House, the Department has determined that, consistent with applicable law and longstanding Executive Branch policy, it is not in a position to provide the information responsive to your request regarding a specific individual,” the letter states.

But according to Congressional sources the information requested is necessary for the committee to conduct its review and the constant battles with the DOJ and FBI hamper their ability to do sufficient oversight.

Nunes, like many others have noted their frustration with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation saying, “we found out Friday from the judge (Ellis) it kind of looks like this whole investigation has gone off the rails.”

“If you have a counterintelligence investigation opened up on you as an American citizen, this is done secretly with only a few peoples knowledge and if they go to court they go to a secret court to get a warrant on you like they did with Carter Page. So there is a very small apparatus in our country that holds the check and balance authority between Congress and the Executive Branch and when the Obama administration decided to move forward on a counterintelligence investigation in a campaign of all things that’s how we’ve gotten to here,” he added.

Link

Interesting. So the DOJ says this individual is so important thay lives may be in danger if they turn over the documents. Why? Nunes didn't ask for it to be declassed, he just wants to read it. How will that endanger lives?

If these documents really, truely, are part of an important investigation why not just have a meeting and explain this to Nunes? Tell him why. Don't just say "no, it's classified. You wouldn't understand". That's why Nunes is so frustrated (and so am I). If there is a real reason talk to him like a man don't fall on the "it's classifed and will impact national security " crutch. That has been abused WAY too much.

Thanks for the link. My google foo sucked this AM.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Interesting. So the DOJ says this individual is so important thay lives may be in danger if they turn over the documents. Why? Nunes didn't ask for it to be declassed, he just wants to read it. How will that endanger lives?

If these documents really, truely, are part of an important investigation why not just have a meeting and explain this to Nunes? Tell him why. Don't just say "no, it's classified. You wouldn't understand". That's why Nunes is so frustrated (and so am I). If there is a real reason talk to him like a man don't fall on the "it's classifed and will impact national security " crutch. That has been abused WAY too much.

Thanks for the link. My google foo sucked this AM.

Maybe the subject is Nunes.

quote:

Maybe the subject is Nunes.

The way this soup sandwich has slid off the bread it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

online photo sharing

ltr from DoJ to Nunes of 3 May 2018

It’s time to level with the public about the basis for Mueller’s investigation.

Andrew McCarthy
National Review

‘How do you know Trump’s not a suspect?”

I’ve been hearing that question a lot these days. News reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller may try to coerce President Trump’s testimony by issuing a grand-jury subpoena if the president does not agree to a “voluntary” interview. That has sparked a public debate over the question of whether Mueller, an inferior executive officer, has such authority to strong-arm the chief executive — the official in whom the Constitution reposes all executive power, including the power that Mueller exercises only as long as the president permits it.

I don’t think he does.

To be clear, there is no question that Mueller, as a special counsel, is a federal prosecutor who has the authority to issue grand-jury subpoenas. But everyone who works in the Justice Department has a boss, including the attorney general (who answers to the president). As special counsel, Mueller answers to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the so-called Russia investigation). That means Mueller has the authority to issue a subpoena to the president unless Rosenstein — or the president — tells him not to.

Before we come to whether the deputy AG should clip the special counsel’s wings, let’s address one point of confusion.

Many people believe, as I do, that the president should not be subjected to questioning by a prosecutor on the facts as we presently know them. From that premise, however, they argue that Mueller may not subpoena the president, or that the president may ignore any subpoena. Neither of those things is true.

A prosecutor has the power to subpoena virtually anyone. In our system, there are very few limits on what the grand jury may investigate. A comparison usefully illustrates this point. I’ve frequently observed that by appointing Mueller without first establishing a basis to believe a crime warranting investigation had been committed, Rosenstein violated regulations that govern special-counsel appointments. By contrast, the grand jury has no such constraints — it can investigate pretty much anything. There is no proof hurdle — such as “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” — that has to be surmounted. In fact, a grand jury is free to investigate even if it just wants to satisfy itself that a crime has not been committed.

So a prosecutor who is using the grand jury has sweeping investigative authority. That includes broad subpoena power. There is a big difference, however, between the power to issue a subpoena to a person and the power to make that person testify.

Our law extends various privileges that relieve the privilege-holder of the obligation to provide evidence. Best known is the privilege against self-incrimination — a person never has to testify against himself. But there are many others: husband-wife, lawyer-client, doctor-patient, priest-penitent, and so on.

So sure, a prosecutor can issue a subpoena requiring a witness (including a witness who may be a subject or target of the investigation) to appear before the grand jury. But that does not necessarily mean the witness must testify. If the witness has a privilege that would be infringed by the prosecutor’s questions, the witness may refuse to answer.

Of course, a prosecutor is not going to issue a subpoena or otherwise try to coerce the testimony of a witness the prosecutor knows is going to assert a valid privilege. Similarly, a person who has a valid privilege knows a subpoena cannot force him to testify. These practical realities understandably cause non-lawyers to assume that the prosecutor is probably not allowed to issue the subpoena, or that the recipient’s privilege means he can ignore the subpoena. Not so. Technically, the prosecutor has the authority to issue the subpoena, even if it is futile; and a witness may not lawfully ignore the subpoena — that would be contempt of court (since a subpoena is basically a court order to appear).

Bottom line: The question is not whether a prosecutor has the power to issue a subpoena. It is whether the person he wants to subpoena has a privilege that would allow him to refuse to testify.

Now, why does our law grant such privileges? Because we recognize that in a society based on ordered liberty, some things are simply more important than the search for truth in a criminal investigation. Some security considerations; some fundamental human relationships; some needs to promote exchanges of information that, in turn, promote the functioning of a free society — these priorities can and often do outweigh a prosecutor’s desire to gather evidence relevant to an investigation.

I dealt with this in national-security cases. Let’s say the FBI has an informant who has infiltrated a terrorist cell and is giving the government information that helps us prevent terrorist attacks. A prosecutor at the Justice Department says we now need to indict some of the terrorists in the cell; the FBI counters that if we indict the terrorists, we will have to identify the informant and we will lose this vital source of life-saving information. If the officials who run the Justice Department agree with the FBI, that does not mean they believe terrorism prosecutions are unimportant; it means they prioritize security, so the need to prosecute has to take a back seat to other vital concerns.

The president’s job is more critical to the nation than Robert Mueller’s investigation. That does not mean Mueller’s investigation is insignificant; it is crucial that we fully uncover Russia’s interference in the 2016 election (the aim of the counterintelligence investigation Mueller was assigned to conduct) so that we can thwart the Kremlin in the future. But it does mean that Mueller’s desire for investigative secrecy and the ability to interview every witness who might have relevant evidence has to give way to other priorities.

As we observed here a few days ago, while the president’s awesome responsibilities for American governance and national-security are more significant than any criminal investigation, the president is not above the law. Thus, there are circumstances in which it is reasonable to burden the president to comply with investigative demands. But those circumstances must be narrow.

This is precisely why the courts have recognized “executive privilege,” a qualified privilege that enables a president to shield information unless a prosecutor can demonstrate that its disclosure is critical to an investigation. Given that the president is the chief executive and can fire federal prosecutors at will, it is not clear how a prosecutor would have authority to oppose a presidential assertion of privilege. But the upshot is obvious: A prosecutor should not be permitted to seek information from a president unless there is evidence of a serious crime in which the president is implicated, and there is no alternative source from which the prosecutor could obtain the information sought.

This is certainly clear enough to the Justice Department when, as sometimes happens, a defendant in a trial attempts to subpoena some top government official on the theory that the official might have relevant information. The Justice Department routinely fights off these efforts, arguing that there is no basis to burden these officials in the absence of proof that the testimony sought is critically important to the case and there is no alternative source from which the information can be elicited.

This makes perfect sense. If there were any other rule, these officials would be unable to perform the responsibilities of their public offices — responsibilities that are more vital to the nation than the case in question. And plainly, no other government official’s responsibilities compare to the importance of the president’s.

There are thus very good reasons why Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein should step in and prevent Special Counsel Mueller from seeking to question the president. But I want to leave you with a different thought. How are we supposed to grapple with whether the president should be compelled to testify when we don’t know what Mueller is alleging? What crime does Mueller want to ask the president about? And if there isn’t one, why are we even talking about an interview, let alone a subpoena?

Yes, all prosecutors want to maintain investigative secrecy. In the vast majority of cases, the enforcement of the law after a serious crime has been committed outweighs other concerns; secrecy enables prosecutors to investigate without smearing innocent people, so we respect the need for it. But secrecy is not an absolute requirement; it must give way when outweighed by other considerations.

Can anyone conceivably contend that a prosecutor’s desire to maintain secrecy until the prosecutor is good and ready to reveal details of his investigation is more important to our society than the damage caused by potentially unfounded suspicion that the president is a criminal?

It has become ludicrous. The question of whether a prosecutor should be permitted to interview a president hinges on whether the president is a suspect. There is no public evidence that President Trump is. This raises the patent objection that he should not be asked to be interviewed under those circumstances. What we hear in response is, “How do you know he’s not a suspect?” But the reason we don’t know — other than the lack of evidence after two years — is that Mueller won’t deign to tell us, and Rosenstein won’t deign to comply, publicly, with regulations that required him to outline the basis for a criminal investigation.

That is not acceptable. In every other independent-prosecutor investigation in modern history — Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater/Lewinsky — the president and the public have known exactly what was alleged. The prosecutor was able to investigate with all the secrecy the law allows, but under circumstances in which we all understood what was being investigated and why the president was suspected of wrongdoing.

After two years, we are entitled to nothing less. The president should direct Rosenstein to outline, publicly and in detail, the good-faith basis for a criminal investigation arising out of Russia’s interference in the election — if there is one. If he can’t, Mueller’s criminal investigation should be terminated; if he can, Mueller should be compelled to explain (unless Rosenstein’s disclosure makes it clear) why he needs to interview President Trump in order to complete his work.

If Rosenstein and Mueller are reluctant to do that, it can only be because they’ve decided that not only their investigation but also their desire for secrecy take precedence over every other consideration, including the president’s capacity to govern domestically and conduct foreign policy in a dangerous world. But secrecy is not the nation’s top priority. It’s long past time to lay the cards on the table.

Link