He knows that Mueller really should not have been appointed because there\u2019s no underlying crime. But his whole piece — “Mueller\u2019s Investigation of Trump Is Going Too Far” — is about the fact that there are no boundaries containing Mueller as there should be, and the boundaries are Russia over here and Russia over there. This investigation should be about collusion or obstruction vis-a-vis the charge of Russians colluded with the Trump team on the election. There isn\u2019t any evidence of that.<\/p>\n
There isn\u2019t any evidence the Russians had anything to do with votes. There hasn\u2019t been any evidence produced. It\u2019s just because Trump fired Comey that the left started screaming about special counsel, special counsel, and the deputy AG (because Jeff Sessions had recused himself) appoints Mueller — who has an impeccable, unapproachable, unbeatable, untoppable, unassailable reputation in the swamp. But since there was no underlying crime, Mueller has no boundaries on where he can go. And this guy\u2019s point is, that\u2019s wrong.<\/p>\n
That he needs to be reined in. That Rosenstein needs to send him another letter saying, “Get back online here, Pal,” which Rosenstein could do. Now, Rosenstein was on Fox News Sunday yesterday and claims that he\u2019s done that. This is what\u2019s weird. Rosenstein claims that the original letter limits Mueller, and that was news to me. We\u2019ve got some Rosenstein bites. We\u2019re gonna switch up here, Mike. Can you give me sound bites nine and 10 and 11 real quick instead of the others? (interruption) Okay.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/650-080717-Rod-Rosenstein-1.jpg\")
Here\u2019s Rosenstein, and here\u2019s the question from Chris Wallace. “I understand that Mueller\u2019s investigation is not a fishing expedition, but you say he\u2019s gonna look into any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. So in the course of his investigation of the issues that he\u2019s looking at, if he finds evidence of a crime, can he look at…” What this means is, “Here\u2019s the reg. You\u2019re given boundaries,” in this case, Russia.<\/p>\n
“Okay, in the investigation of Russia you find that Trump might have used cigarette butts in asphalt in 1988, and it might be against EPA regs. So the reg would say that Mueller has to go back to the AG and get permission to investigate Trump\u2019s use of cigarette butts in asphalt in a construction project in 1988 — and if he\u2019s denied permission to investigate it, he can\u2019t.” That\u2019s what Wallace is asking him. Essentially the question is: If he finds a crime, can he investigate that?<\/p>\n
ROSENSTEIN: If he finds evidence of a crime that\u2019s within the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of his investigation, then he can. If it\u2019s something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting attorney general — at this time, me — for permission to expand his investigation. But we don\u2019t talk about that publicly, and so the speculation you\u2019ve seen in the news media? That\u2019s not anything that I\u2019ve said. It\u2019s not anything Director Mueller said. We don\u2019t know who\u2019s saying it or how credible those sources are.<\/p>\n