https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million/
* * *
Brilliant is an understatement.

You’re talking to a partisan Democrat. As far as he’s concerned, that’s totes OK so long as the target isn’t one of his peeps.

The question (not answered by the bare terms of this section of the statute) is whether or not a criminal investigation is “warranted” without the identification of facts which lead to the suspicion that a specific crime(s) has been committed. There must be other authority and precedent that fleshes this out what this term means within the context of the statute but I have no idea how to research that right now. Generally speaking, a prosecutor isn’t supposed to target someone because they don’t like them and fish around to find some crime–any crime. So my educated guess is that the term “warranted” is supposed to require pre-existing facts that raise a reasonable suspicion that a particular crime has been committed.
Here’s an important point: Statutes must be read in their entirety. The statute states that special counsel is only to be appointed when a criminal investigation is warranted AND that there would be a conflict of interest for the (entire) Justice Department that prevents their involvement. Now, as ACM notes, how can you establish that there is this momentous conflict of interest without reference to the facts establishing a crime? A fact-free, open-ended investigation by definition doesn’t identify the parties and the behavior that would allegedly be in conflict.

It is ? Why would you do a “criminal investigation” if a crime was not of concern?

I guess we need to update the definition of “virgin” for you lefties.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million/

Just one other thing for Manju and his grounds for the Special Prosecutor;

“Manju, bless your heart, you are a precious child of God. Not of a precious child of allah, they aren’t the same.” The orange wig, round rubber nose, and enormous shoes are his alone. They say on the internet no one knows you’re a dog, it doesn’t say everyone knows you aren’t a clown.

If a criminal investigation is ‘warranted’, there is a crime to investigate or a suspected crime.

Read McCarthy’s other articles on this point. The FBI opened a counter-intelligence investigation. Rosenstein’s commission to Mueller pretended, contrary to law, that a criminal investigation could be conducted with the predicate used to establish a counter-intelligence investigation. Mueller’s office also went so far as to attempt to deny Judge Ellis a copy of the memorandum establishing the scope of Mueller’s investigation.

McCarthy makes clear: the whole think was hinky from the get-go.

(Btw. McCarthy was of the NeverTrumper persuasion in 2016; unlike David French, Patrick Frey and the Bulwark crew, he isn’t a fanatic about it).

“…warranted…”

is the key here.

Does “warranted” mean suspicion of a specific crime having been committed?

Or does it mean suspicion of any (open-ended) crime having been committed?

If the former, then what is that specific crime? Name it. Spell it out. And then commence the investigation accordingly. (In McCarthy’s words: “But there has to be evidence that he committed a crime.”)

Conversely, if that specific crime CANNOT be determined, then is an investigation “warranted”? McCarthy, and others, would say NO.

(Once again: What is the definition—the meaning—of “warranted” in this case?)

If I understand this correctly, then what McCarthy is claiming (and has been claiming all along, together with others—e.g.,
https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/poor-form-in-mueller-investigation/ )…
…is, that the “crime” DID NOT exist (i.e., could not be named).

What this meant for the Democrats is that a “crime” had to be created out of the existence of a counter-intelligence investigation. Think of it as: “In the beginning was the C-I investigation…and the C-I investigation became ‘crime’….”.

IOW the “mere” fact that there was no crime was overridden by the Obama WH/DOJ creating the environment where it was “determined” that there WERE “grounds” to conduct a counter-intelligence investigation—an “as-if” crime—against the president. (Bogus grounds to be sure—the phony Steele dossier being manipulated so as to persuade/convince (rather, “suborn”) the FISA judges to get the ball rolling officially—but “grounds” nonetheless).

Once again: the purpose of that counter-intelligence investigation was being touted as (i.e., purposely confused with) a crime. As THE crime. As Trump’s crime. (All this together with the strategic use of leaks to an avid, rabid MSM, which in turn magnified to the nth degree—aka “lied about”—the extraordinarily serious nature of “the crime”, with the intention of establishing Trump’s “guilt” beyond the shadow of a doubt.)

Clever, ain’t it!

The entire—ingenious—Obaman effort was to muddy the waters by using the trick of mixing what ought to be, so to speak, immiscible liquids.

Water and oil DON’T mix.
A counter-intelligence investigation is NOT a criminal investigation.

Thus, while a Special Investigator (Mueller) could/should have been appointed to investigate a specific crime, it was totally improper for him to lead a counter-intelligence investigation.

Which is why it was so necessary to make the public believe that there was a crime even when there wasn’t.

To get back to that oh-so-critical counter-intelligence investigation: it was based on a dossier that—guess what!—turned out to be entirely manufactured.

100% bogus.

And manufactured, no less, by a company employed by Hillary Clinton (via cut-outs).

Not bad, actually! (And to think, we could have had her as our President! Talk about missed opportunities….)

The MSM did yeoman work in ensuring that the bogus nature of the counter-intelligence “narrative” manufactured by the Obama administration remained totally hidden. Out of sight.

And those stalwarts continue to do yeoman work in ensuring, to the best of their ability, that it REMAINS out of sight.