HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262.jpg
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Narrative report / book excerpt (likely from a house oversight committee production)
File Size:
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a narrative report or book produced to the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262). It details the internal strategic analysis of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel team regarding the threat of President Trump shutting down the investigation. It discusses the potential firing of Rod Rosenstein, the recusal of the Attorney General, and the legal and political ramifications (including impeachment and obstruction of justice) if the President were to act unilaterally to end the probe. NOTE: While the prompt identifies this as 'Epstein-related,' this specific page contains no text regarding Jeffrey Epstein; it is focused entirely on the Mueller investigation.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Robert Mueller | Special Counsel |
Lead of the investigation mentioned as the 'Mueller team' or 'Special Counsel'.
|
| The President | President of the United States |
Donald Trump (implied); the subject of the investigation and the person with authority to potentially fire Rosenstein.
|
| Rod Rosenstein | Deputy Attorney General |
Identified as the 'most immediate threat' target; the person the President might replace to control the investigation.
|
| Attorney General | Attorney General |
Jeff Sessions (implied by 'prior recusal'); mentioned as someone the President could order to repeal regulations or f...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Special Counsel's Office |
The investigative body led by Mueller.
|
|
| White House |
The executive branch administration; insiders are cited regarding their view of the President's behavior.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Mentioned as the venue for a potential legal battle if the President fired the Special Counsel directly.
|
|
| Congress |
Political body that might respond with impeachment.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Hypothetical
Hypothetical
Potential repeal of Special Counsel regulations to close down the investigation.
Washington D.C.
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Washington D.C.
|
Relationships (2)
Text discusses the President potentially using authority to move against the Special Counsel.
President views replacing Rosenstein as a strategic move to control the investigation.
Key Quotes (4)
"The nature of that behavior, for the Mueller team, is corrupt; this, according to the White House, is how voters elected the President to behave."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262.jpg
Quote #1
"The Special Counsel seems less worried about its legal position than it does about it's existential one—continuing to anticipate how the President might use his authority to move against it."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262.jpg
Quote #2
"Both of these actions could, the Special Counsel believes, become part of the behavior that it argues in the indictment amounts to a prima facie case for obstruction of justice."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262.jpg
Quote #3
"The delays and disruption that result as courts sort out the ramifications of the President's actions might well be the President's legal friend"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,527 characters)
ways by both Mueller and White House insiders: it puts the President's public behavior on trial. The nature of that behavior, for the Mueller team, is corrupt; this, according to the White House, is how voters elected the President to behave.
The Special Counsel seems less worried about its legal position than it does about it's existential one—continuing to anticipate how the President might use his authority to move against it.
It sees its most immediate threat as a move by the President to replace Rosenstein. Here it believes that in the inevitable Supreme Court battle that would follow a direct attempt by the President to fire the Special Counsel, the Court would likely rebuff such an expansion of Presidential authority. At the same time, according to its internal research, the Mueller team understands that the President, acting with only somewhat more subtlety, would have the authority to order the Attorney General—even given his prior recusal—to repeal the Special Counsel regulations and close down the investigation. He can fire the Attorney General if he refuses. The President, could, too, according to the Special Counsel's analysis, fire Rosenstein and seek someone else to oversee the investigation in ways more to his liking. Both of these actions could, the Special Counsel believes, become part of the behavior that it argues in the indictment amounts to a prima facie case for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller team continues to believe it is protected by political realities—the President can not know how Congress might respond, and it might well respond with impeachment—and by bureaucratic ones. Changes to the Special Counsel authorization might require an extended comment period, meanwhile leaving the Special Counsel's status unchanged.
Still, what if the President, acting unilaterally, does shut it down? This, people around the President say is the unknown legal area that might be advantageous to the President. The delays and disruption that result as courts sort out the ramifications of the President's actions might well be the President's legal friend—the reason some in the White House have been urging the President to end the investigation, whatever the political fallout.
If so, what then happens to all the work the Special Counsel's office has done, and, indeed, to the sitting Grand Juries reviewing the evidence? The special counsel's view, according to insiders working on the issues, is that nobody knows. The optimistic legal view is that the
The Special Counsel seems less worried about its legal position than it does about it's existential one—continuing to anticipate how the President might use his authority to move against it.
It sees its most immediate threat as a move by the President to replace Rosenstein. Here it believes that in the inevitable Supreme Court battle that would follow a direct attempt by the President to fire the Special Counsel, the Court would likely rebuff such an expansion of Presidential authority. At the same time, according to its internal research, the Mueller team understands that the President, acting with only somewhat more subtlety, would have the authority to order the Attorney General—even given his prior recusal—to repeal the Special Counsel regulations and close down the investigation. He can fire the Attorney General if he refuses. The President, could, too, according to the Special Counsel's analysis, fire Rosenstein and seek someone else to oversee the investigation in ways more to his liking. Both of these actions could, the Special Counsel believes, become part of the behavior that it argues in the indictment amounts to a prima facie case for obstruction of justice.
The Mueller team continues to believe it is protected by political realities—the President can not know how Congress might respond, and it might well respond with impeachment—and by bureaucratic ones. Changes to the Special Counsel authorization might require an extended comment period, meanwhile leaving the Special Counsel's status unchanged.
Still, what if the President, acting unilaterally, does shut it down? This, people around the President say is the unknown legal area that might be advantageous to the President. The delays and disruption that result as courts sort out the ramifications of the President's actions might well be the President's legal friend—the reason some in the White House have been urging the President to end the investigation, whatever the political fallout.
If so, what then happens to all the work the Special Counsel's office has done, and, indeed, to the sitting Grand Juries reviewing the evidence? The special counsel's view, according to insiders working on the issues, is that nobody knows. The optimistic legal view is that the
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030262
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document