Wednesday, June 26, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: Judiciary Jolly Jerry Prematurely Ejaculates Victory All Over The Emolument Lawsuit Discovery Order

Image result for jolly rancher cocktail
Jerry is going to need one of these.
Poor Judiciary Jolly Jerry is prematurely being jolly.

Emmet Sullivan just ordered to proceed in discovery in the emoluments lawsuit.

That means Trump is just going to have to stop obstructing justice and pull that IG Report out from his backpocket, which would make Jolly Jerry, et al, very unjolly.

Onward to impeachment!

Dilly, dilly, Rashida!


In a victory for the Constitution and 215 Congressional plaintiffs, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied President Trump’s request to delay the challenge brought by U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and members of the Senate and House of Representatives to hold him accountable to the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, and ordered discovery to begin on Friday, June 28. The Members of Congress are represented in this case by the Constitutional Accountability Center.

“This tremendous victory assures that President Trump will be held accountable to the Constitution and the American people — a historic triumph for legally mandated transparency,” Blumenthal said. “In a thoughtful, well-reasoned opinion, Judge Sullivan articulated what the law makes clear: there is absolutely no reason to delay one more day in ensuring that President Trump is held accountable for his violation of the Constitution’s preeminent anti-corruption provision. For more than two years, President Trump has thumbed his nose at the American people in flagrant violation of the law. Today, the courts spoke: no longer.”

“The Constitution is clear: the President must obtain Congress’s consent before receiving foreign benefits,” said Chairman Nadler. “Yet again, the courts have ruled in our favor as we seek to uphold the Constitution and prove that no one is above the law. This is a great victory in our fight for transparency and accountability for the American people.”

“We’re gratified that Judge Sullivan has rejected President Trump’s effort to run out the clock on this important lawsuit,” said Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod. “Our Constitution’s Framers adopted the Foreign Emoluments Clause to ensure that our nation’s leaders, including the President, would act in the national interest, not in their own financial self-interest, but for over two years, the President has been making sensitive foreign policy decisions under a cloud of potentially divided loyalty and compromised judgment caused by his enrichment from foreign states. It is therefore critical that this case be decided as expeditiously as possible, and as Judge Sullivan rightly recognized, the best way to ensure that happens is for this litigation to proceed in the district court. With the orders Judge Sullivan issued today, discovery can proceed, and we can begin to obtain the information that will enable us to prove our allegations that the President is violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause.”
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

MCQUADE: These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die. Here’s Why They’re Wrong

Vance is distinguished professor of the practice of law at the University of Alabama, a former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama and an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst.

When we joined other legal experts earlier this month to testify before the House Judiciary Committee regarding lessons from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, it became apparent from the questioning that a number of misconceptions continue to exist regarding Mueller’s findings. The narrative was shaped by Attorney General William Barr, who issued his description of Mueller’s conclusions three weeks before the public saw the full 448-page reportIn a letter to Barr, Mueller complained that Barr’s summary “did not fully capture the context, nature and substance” of his team’s work and conclusions, and created “public confusion.” Here is our effort to dispel some of those myths.

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

To find conspiracy, a prosecutor must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of the crime: an agreement between at least two people, to commit a criminal offense and an overt act in furtherance of that agreement. One of the underlying criminal offenses that Mueller reviewed for conspiracy was campaign-finance violations. Mueller found that Trump campaign members Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian nationals in Trump Tower in New York June 2016 for the purpose of receiving disparaging information about Clinton as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” according to an email message arranging the meeting.

This meeting did not amount to a criminal offense, in part, because Mueller was unable to establish “willfulness,” that is, that the participants knew that their conduct was illegal. Mueller was also unable to conclude that the information was a “thing of value” that exceeded $25,000, the requirement for campaign finance to be a felony, as opposed to a civil violation of law. But the fact that the conduct did not technically amount to conspiracy does not mean that it was acceptable. Trump campaign members welcomed foreign influence into our election and then compromised themselves with the Russian government by covering it up.

Mueller found other contacts with Russia, such as the sharing of polling data about Midwestern states where Trump later won upset victories, conversations with the Russian ambassador to influence Russia’s response to sanctions imposed by the U.S. government in response to election interference, and communications with Wikileaks after it had received emails stolen by Russia. While none of these acts amounted to the crime of conspiracy, all could be described as “collusion.”
Myth: Mueller found no obstruction.

Response: Mueller found at least four acts by Trump in which all elements of the obstruction statute were satisfied – attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel Don McGahn to lie and create a false document about efforts to fire Mueller, attempting to limit the investigation to future elections and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government. As Mueller stated, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Mueller declined to make a “traditional prosecution decision” about obstruction of justice. Because he was bound by the Department of Justice policy that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime, he did not even attempt to reach a legal conclusion about the facts. Instead, he undertook to “preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available,” because a president can be charged after he leaves office. In fact, out of an abundance of fairness, Mueller thought that it would be improper to even accuse Trump of committing a crime so as not to “preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” meaning impeachment.

Myth: Case closed. No do-overs.

Response: Mueller investigated the case under criminal statutes, which is a narrow and specific window of inquiry. Congress has a different and broader responsibility to determine whether the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors for which impeachment is appropriate. Congress is not bound by the high standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that Mueller used for his criminal inquiry. Our system reserves that burden of proof for cases where someone’s liberty is at stake and they may be incarcerated as a result of proceedings. That is not the case with impeachment.
Myth: Focus on obstruction detracts from focus on Russia.

Response: We agree that it is critical to defend our elections against future instances of the Russian attack Mueller details in his report. But focusing on obstruction is focusing on Russia. Mueller concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in “sweeping and systematic fashion.” The report documents Trump’s efforts to end or curtail the investigation, his refusal to be interviewed and written answers that Mueller found “inadequate.” The report also notes that members of the campaign lied, refused to answer questions, deleted communications and used encrypted applications.

Obstruction is a crime precisely because those who engage in it seek to keep investigators from arriving at the truth. As Mueller wrote in Volume I, pertaining to conspiracy with Russia, “given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” Efforts to obstruct the investigation may have shielded not only the conduct of members of Trump’s campaign, but also active measures by Russia to interfere with our election.

Myth: If there was no underlying crime, then there can be no obstruction of justice.

Response: Obstruction of justice includes not just completed acts but also attempts. That rule makes sense because otherwise even the most blatant obstructers could avoid accountability by successfully concealing their crimes from investigators. Furthermore, attempts are illegal because the wrong that the law seeks to prevent is the effort to prevent investigators from learning the truth. Here, of course, crimes were charged against 37 individuals and entities, including two dozen Russian nationals.

Although Mueller was unable to establish each and every element of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he found contacts with Russia that may have created concern for Trump that they would amount to a crime or create embarrassment for himself, his family and his campaign. He also may have been motivated by a desire to conceal his payments to silence Stormy Daniels regarding allegations of marital infidelity on the eve of the election after his disparaging remarks about women on the Access Hollywood tape had become public, activity for which he is described as “Individual-1,” an unindicted co-conspirator, in a federal criminal case filed in the Southern District of New York. In addition, Trump may have been motivated by a desire to avoid the appearance that his election was illegitimate because it was achieved with assistance from a foreign adversary. He could have been concerned that the investigation would reveal personal financial matters, which he has always considered sensitive. Regardless of his motive, Trump’s efforts to interfere with Mueller’s investigation legally amount to obstruction of justice, even under the narrow definition and high standard of proof Mueller used.

Myth: Because Trump was unsuccessful in ending the investigation, there can be no obstruction of justice.

Response: The report finds substantial evidence that Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said he was prepared to resign rather than comply. Because the law punishes attempts, Trump’s effort to end the investigation constitutes obstruction of justice, even though McGahn did not follow through on the order. In addition, Mueller found that all elements of obstruction were satisfied with regard to Trump’s efforts to limit the investigation to future elections: Trump directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse” himself from the investigation and to publicly announce that the investigation would focus on only future elections — that is, even if Mueller were fired and then replaced, the new special counsel would be required to ignore facts relating to the 2016 election. If successful, this effort would have prevented us from learning the truth about Russia’s efforts to attack the 2016 election. By looking out for his own interests, Trump ignored the interests of our country.

Myth: A president cannot obstruct justice as a matter of law when he is exercising executive power.
Response: Mueller found that this theory, advanced by Barr in an unsolicited 19-page memo before he became attorney general, was inconsistent with the law, the Constitution and the foundational notion of separation of powers. The Constitution requires not just that the president execute the law, but that he do so “faithfully.” Under Barr’s theory, a president would be above the law and could engage in behavior such as ordering a U.S. Attorney to investigate a political rival even if no criminal behavior had occurred or to stop investigating a friend or family member. Mueller was able to draw upon the expertise of team member Michael Dreeban, DOJ’s top career criminal appellate lawyer who has served in Republican and Democratic administrations over his three decades at the Department, and has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court. Barr has never been a courtroom prosecutor. As Mueller and his team stated, subjecting the president to obstruction law is consistent with the fundamental principle of our government that “no person in this country is so high that he is above the law.” Even under Barr’s theory, a president commits illegal obstruction when he engages in conduct that is outside his executive power, such as directing a witness to create a false document, as Mueller found that Trump did with McGahn.

Myth: Mueller wanted Barr to make the call on whether Trump committed obstruction.

Response: Mueller didn’t invite Barr to make a decision about prosecuting obstruction. He left it to prosecutors who could decide whether to pursue charges after Trump left office and to Congress which has impeachment power. And Mueller’s treatment of conspiracy shows that he knew how to conclude that a crime has not been established. By declining to reach the same conclusion with regard to obstruction, he indicated that he clearly found the evidence of that crime more troubling. Barr’s peremptory dismissal of obstruction happened with no explanation of how he was able to resolve the evidence of obstruction when Mueller could not. More than 1,000 former federal prosecutors, including us, have signed a letter stating that the evidence establishes multiple counts of obstruction of justice. And Mueller expressed concern to Barr that the attorney general’s intervention threatened to undermine “the central purpose” for appointing a special counsel: “to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Myth: Spying occurred against the Trump campaign.

Response: In October 2016, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved electronic surveillance of Carter Page, a Trump adviser. Authorization for surveillance under FISA requires a judge to find probable cause to believe that Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. The Steele dossier was part of a 66-page application submitted by DOJ and the FBI describing other facts in support of probable cause. The fact that the Steele dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign was disclosed in the application to the court in a footnote, which is consistent with the way potential bias is typically disclosed to a judge so that he may assess the credibility of the source. Renewals of the FISA application were approved by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was appointed by President Trump. While court-authorized surveillance was used in this counterintelligence investigation into Russia, there is nothing to indicate that this technique was improper.

Myth: The special counsel’s name is Robert Mule-er.

Response: At the hearing, at least two members of Congress referred to the special counsel as Mr. “Mule-er.” Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, Mueller is a dedicated public servant who took on a thankless task and a huge pay cut to investigate an attack on our national security, and he deserves the respect of having his name pronounced correctly. It’s pronounced “Muller.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

OVERSIGHT: Hearing on Hatch Act violations - Kellyanne Conway Does Not Show Up - Quid Pro Quo Campaign Personal Inurement Conundrum - Where Is The U.S. Treasury?

The Latin phrase quid pro quo originally implied that something had been substituted, as in this instead of that. Early usage by English speakers followed the original Latin meaning, with occurrences in the 1530s where the term referred to either intentionally or unintentionally substituting one medicine from another. This may also have extended to a fraudulent substitution of useful medicines for an ingenuine article. By the end of the same century, quid pro quo evolved into a more current use to describe equivalent exchanges.
In 1654, the expression quid pro quo was used to generally refer to something done for personal gain or with the expectation of reciprocity in the text The Reign of King Charles: An History Disposed into Annalls, with a somewhat positive connotation. It refers to the covenant with Christ as something "that prove not a nudum pactum, a naked contract, without quid pro quo." Believers in Christ have to do their part in return, namely "foresake the devil and all his works".
The "foresaken" part is in reference to circumvention of the laws of the land, the U.S., to adhere to the laws of the heavens, or rather ecclesiastic law, more intuitively recognized as private law of the Vatican, a jurisdictional issue.

The Covenant with Christ is now recognized as the UCC, the children's trust funds.

TRANSLATION: If I give you lots of money while you are in office, to your campaign, through corporate layered NGOs and PACs, where I was only able to make this large sum political campaign contribution by procuring a federal government contract, with the help of your Chief of Staff, who then changes your congressional votes for more money deposited into their credit union account, monthly, to make sure Bills are put on committee hearing agendas, so I do not get busted doing what I am doing, like stealin', is this considered a violation of the Hatch Act if I run my ops through a foreign corporation with a children's trust?

Yes, the members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voting rights, well, some, until Nancy Edmunds started stripping their right to vote.

What if I gave you money to your political campaign by donating to an arm of the Vatican, like Bethany Christian, and you did some congressional, or even executive or judicial stuff for me like launch the Christian Children's Crusade of Faith Based Funding, Medicaid Expansion and Title I chattel re-interpretations, to "save the savages" at the border by funding child welfare propaganda operations, is that an Hatch Act violation or would that be an act of insurrection?

Better yet, what is the proper jurisdiction to address the act of a staffer, and or public official, who has not just taken money, but foreign money, to participate in the construction and continuance of money laundering operations in overseas economic development of infrastructure for the private inurement of a privateering UCC?

So, did Kellyanne make any money running ops from her office, and if she did, where is the U.S. Treasury and is stealin' from the U.S. Treasury an act of treason?

I guess the only way to find out is to initiate impeachment proceedings.

Dilly dilly!

On a side note, Raskin's new hairstyle is rather complimentary to him.

Jim Jordan asked the most important question to OSC: "Who filed the complaint?"

I know who filed the complaint.

Do you know who filed the complaint?

Probably not, but I do see a transposable model.

Jim identified CREW as one of the groups that filed the complaint.

Cummings is asking OSC to name the other groups.

Kelly is questioning OSC social media rules and the correlation of donations and media activities.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

JUDICIARY: Continuing Challenges to the Voting Rights Act Since Shelby County v. Holder -

Q: "What was the worst voter violation in Georgia?"

A: "Land Banks".

Was it just me or did anyone else notice that Stacey Abrams did not mention real estate property foreclosures as a plausible explanation for the purging of the voters rolls?

It seems Stacey is pushing that new U.S. German Marshal reparations economic development hustle because TARP money ran out and those land banks are moving into the land of the children's trusts.

Louie Gohmert said his name and gave due respect to his work on voting rights.

That was nice.


The Honorable Stacey Abrams 
Founder and Chair, Fair Fight Action
Ms. Kristen Clarke 
President and Executive Director, National Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
The Honorable Kyle Hawkins 
Solicitor General of Texas, Office of the Texas Attorney General
Ms. Leah Aden 
Deputy Director of Litigation, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.


116th Congress

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

The Great Water Shutoff Debacle - The Accidental Legal Geniuses LARP

No photo description available.
Guess what time I was on the phone.

The Great Detroit Water Shutoff Debacle continues.

It seems I have created LARP, but not intentionally, though.

I was just extremely upset that the Detroit Water and Sewer Department had me pay, then shutoff my account the next day, then took my name off my account, with no access, refers me to Water Residential Assistance Program (which does not assist in the sewage portion, which is the largest component of the bill due to all the bonds and stealin') to inform me that I had to open an account, because there was no account, to eventually be met Saturday morning, the National Day Against Violence, by a young gentleman who was attempting to shutoff my water.

Then, due to technical difficulties, and a few questions, I found out that he was called out on a Saturday, when nothing is open, mind you, to terminate illegal water usage.

Yes, my water shutoff, I guess the physical water shutoff, was, I shall assume as I have yet to request a formal investigation, triggered me.

So, these people can just, up and shutoff water, know fully well they are on the international stage for water shutoffs, through their fraud division.

Oh my, that sounds like a Bill Browder move.

Well, going down to the main office early Monday morning, I was informed of an IT account billing system update, then everything made perfect sense to me.

The systemsucks!

The supervisor was very nice to waive the reconnection fee, after I had to vehemently argue with her that my water was never shutoff, even though it showed in the system that it was shutoff.

So, you know the water accounts are meshed with just about every other city, county, state and federal database, through Microsoft, which has highjacked my computer with the Vietnamese version that I cannot remove.

This means I know I have one of those endogenous variables in their predictive modeling crappy models as being labeled as engaging in utility theft, an illegal hook up.

Do I have due process to correct this matter of a public smear of character?

Was this an intentional hack?

When your water is shutoff, your property is condemned by the city, foreclosure procedures will commence, you will be determined in a court of law as being homeless, which means you are stripped of your right to vote, if they can time it properly.

Anyway, I suffered a Post Traumatic Fraud Disorder attack and sent emails to the attorneys who represented the defendants in my qui tam.

I am not going to lose my house and I will not tolerate retaliation with their petards.

It was not difficult to figure out what retaliation as a federal witness looks like because it has become a part of my daily life.

I also reached out to my City Councilman.

Rod Liggons was a bit too enthusiastic and took it upon himself to respond to an email sent to legal counsel of the Detroit Land Bank Authority.

I was nice and kindly informed him to refer all future communications to his legal counsel.

I guess Michael Brady has yet to be replaced.

Such a shame Jeannie Rhee could not continue her representation.

Well, within 24 hours, it seems I must have flustered a few "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) because the courtroom chatter is that they are starting to figure out who the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed truly is, and that is the original source.


Now, we wait to see if they are going to finally stop stealin'.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Can A State Experience A Constitutional Crisis? - Michigan Child Welfare Systems Sucks

Image result for I claim this land in the name of
"I claim the State of Michigan in the name of the Lord
so we can save the savages by salvaging
the children's trust funds." said the christians.
Covenant House Academy is a school for homeless kids.

They just got rid of their homeless resource officer.

Ask yourself. How come this charter school, which receives federal dollars to provide for homeless children, has a 4 year old kid realize that they are not being provided for.

Here is another young man who observed the failure of the Michigan Child Welfare System, and came up with an action.

Think about that for a moment.

This is the new privatized model planned as an expansion in the industry of trafficking tiny humans through foster care and homeless children.

How can you forecast a substantial increase in this population which is now being reclassifed as "Special Needs" along with "African Americans, English as a Second Language?

Wanna know?

EDUCATION: School Re-Segregation - Brown v. Board Of Education - A Residual Of Predictive Modeling Crap Databases Of Property Ownership & Gerrymandering

The border babies are the goods to be acquired by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in foster care.

Bethany Christian got those contracts with Samaritas.

That is All Betsy DeVos.

The christians always have a plan when it comes to a manufactured crisis, particularly when it comes to mass torture and death of "The Poors".

Those are Michigan children.

But wait! it gets even better!

Guess who is about to swoop in and save the day!

Eye Roll: Hillary Swoops In To Save 'The Children' At The Southern Border

Do you want to know what they do with all that funding? 

They are running asset forfeiture through corporate guardianship running everything out the country.

These are foreign corporations, people. 


Has any caught on to what they are doing? 

It is called modern day human trafficking, but in this instance, it is the industry of trafficking tiny humans through Medicaid fraud and Title I schemes.

See, there are children in need of help at the border.

There must be a plan of action, which includes a new, and improved, re-engineering of child welfare by reanimating the residuals of the peculiar institution.

Happy Residuals of the Peculiar Institution Month!

I aver that not one single argument is going to be raised about the current, complete and utter debauchery called charter schools.

Seriously, how is the Michigan Supreme Court even going to touch this when everyone and their mama is waiting for Nancy Edmunds to figure out that the Michigan Child Welfare sucks, which includes all the privatization fraud schemes going on, more than likely through SACWIS, but hey, what do I know?

I know these people are also pushing those Christian Human Plantations like Vista Maria.


Then, there are those issues with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who just so happen to be behind all those child welfare contracts, under international scrutiny for what they do that no one really wants to talk about.

These private schools are foreign corporations.

I wonder if States Supreme Courts can experience a Constitutional Crisis?

I am going to sit back and enjoy observing all the omissions in their fallacious arguments.

Michigan Supreme Court to decide controversy over private school funding

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court says it will decide once and for all whether the Michigan Legislature can appropriate public money for private schools.

And in making that determination, the court will consider a 2017 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that suggests a state ban on funding for private schools could violate a U.S. constitutional provision intended to protect religious liberty.

At issue is a series of Michigan budget moves in recent years in which the GOP-controlled Legislature has appropriated millions of dollars to reimburse private schools for costs they incur to comply with state mandates, such as health and safety regulations.

In an order released Tuesday, the court said it will hear an appeal of the Michigan Court of Appeals October 2018 ruling. In that decision, the court said the Legislature may reimburse private schools for the costs to comply with state health, safety and welfare laws, but only if such costs are incidental to teaching and don't involve a key school function.

In Tuesday's order, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman said the court needs to resolve the longstanding issue once and for all.

"The court owes the parties, and the people of this state, a final decision in this case that fairly considers all inextricably connected issues," Markman wrote.

"The need to fully and finally resolve the present dispute has been made especially critical by the fact that it has now been nearly three years since the Legislature (first approved such funding) and since a lower court of this state issued a preliminary injunction preventing that law from taking effect."
It's important, Markman said, that "our legislative process is no longer maintained in limbo."

Justice Elizabeth Clement will not participate in the decision due to her previous role as legal counsel to former Gov. Rick Snyder, the court said.

In the 2017 case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Missouri Department of Natural Resources policy of denying grants to applicants owned or controlled by a church violated the First Amendment rights of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia to freely exercise its religion. The policy denied the church an otherwise available public benefit on account of its religious status, the court said in a 7-2 ruling.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Trump Is Mad At Sessions - Let Us See Who Figures Out Why First

Image result for cowgirl vernors
Dems' fightin' words!
Trump said Sessions was his biggest mistake.

I cannot wait to see who is the first one to come up with their evidence on how they accessed, obviously, classified intelligence.

This is going to be a hoot!

Trump admits his 'biggest mistake' was handing Jeff Sessions the attorney general job

President Trump said the "biggest mistake" of his presidency was appointing Jeff Sessions to be his attorney general.

“If you could have one do-over as president, what would it be?” Trump was asked by Chuck Todd in an interview with NBC's “Meet the Press” that aired Sunday.

"It would be personnel," Trump responded.

"I would say if I had one do-over, it would be, I would not have appointed Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. That would be my one ... that was the biggest mistake."

“In your mind, that’s your worst mistake?” Todd pressed.

“Yeah, that was the biggest mistake,” Trump said.

Trump fired Sessions in 2018 after the president spent a year publicly fuming about his former campaign adviser turned attorney general’s recusal from overseeing the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia interference in the 2016 election. Sessions said he made a "pretty reasonable" decision, given a regulation that prohibits a Justice employee from investigating campaigns in which they are involved and asserted that he would "not be improperly influenced by political considerations."

Trump had repeatedly attacked his former attorney general on Twitter and in interviews after Sessions’s recusal decision, especially as the special counsel Robert Mueller investigation gained momentum when charges were brought against Russian intelligence agents who engaged in cyberattacks throughout the 2016 election and Trump associates were swept into the probe.

 last June. “So much time and money wasted, so many lives ruined.”
"I don't have an attorney general,” he said in an interview with Hill.TV months before Sessions handed in his letter of resignation. “It's very sad.”

After Sessions was removed, the investigation, which Trump regularly decried as a “hoax” and “witch hunt,” was overseen by Matthew Whitaker and finally William Barr.
didn’t exonerate the president on obstruction of justice

Sunday, June 23, 2019

BEHOLD: The U.S. Conference Of Catholic Bishops Have Announced A Full Scale Parental Rights Propaganda Cyberwar - Happy Residuals Of The Peculiar Institution Month!

That is correct, Boys & Girls, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has launched the first wave of their parental rights propaganda cyberwar.

But have no fear!

I believe the Standing Armies of Attorneys General, Auditors General, and their legions of troops have been anointed by the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed, to seek upon her Codex, for it is there ye shall find all their crap.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Jeannie Rhee's Got A New Job

Jeannie's got a new job.

Jeannie should thank me by offering the services of her new employer, pro bono, as I still hail from the land of "The Poors", to stop her former clients from shutting off my water.

I got the police report already, if that helps.

Tell Loretta I send my love.

Call me, girl.  I know you still have my number in PACER.

Jeannie Rhee, Mueller Prosecutor and Ex-Wilmer Partner, Joins Paul Weiss

Rhee is the latest big name to land at Paul Weiss in recent months. In an interview, Rhee said she is "eager to go back to representing clients. It's something that I've done for a really long time."

Jeannie Rhee
Jeannie Rhee, former defense counsel for the
Detroit Land Bank Authority
Jeannie Rhee, a leading prosecutor who served for two years on Special Counsel Robert Mueller III’s investigation team, is joining Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as a partner in the firm’s white-collar litigation practice in Washington.

Rhee had been one of three Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partners to join Mueller’s team in May 2017. Mueller had been a partner at the firm before his appointment as special counsel overseeing more than a dozen lawyers investigating the ties between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia and the president’s purported efforts to obstruct the inquiry.

“We are delighted to welcome Jeannie, who brings unrivaled experience as one of the nation’s leading white-collar and regulatory defense lawyers and as a first-chair trial lawyer,” Paul Weiss chairman Brad Karp said in a statement. “Jeannie’s years of government service—as a senior Justice Department prosecutor, a member of the Mueller investigative team and an advisor to the U.S. Attorney General and to the White House—will be an invaluable asset to our clients.”

Rhee joined Mueller’s team with then-Wilmer partners James Quarles and Aaron Zebley. Robert Novick, co-chairman of Wilmer, recently called Mueller, Quarles, Rhee and Zebley “highly valued partners and friends.” He added: “If they’re interested in talking, we’re certainly going to talk to people.”

Representatives from Wilmer did not immediately comment Friday.

On Mueller’s team, Rhee was a top prosecutor in the case against three Russian firms and 13 individuals charged with carrying out an alleged campaign to sow discord within the U.S. electorate during the 2016 presidential election. Only one of the 16 defendants in that case, a Russian company called Concord Management and Consulting, has answered the charges in Washington’s federal trial court.

Rhee was a mainstay in court over the past two years as the special counsel’s case against Concord Management played out in front of U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich. The judge has issued several rulings that have kept the charges in place. The company, represented by Reed Smith partners Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly, has pleaded not guilty.

In an interview, Rhee said she is “eager to go back to representing clients. It’s something that I’ve done for a really long time.” She added: “It was really the opportunity to be part of a dynamic office in Washington, D.C., that is nevertheless part of the large powerhouse that is Paul Weiss. It’s a terrific opportunity, and I couldn’t turn it down.”

Rhee reported receiving more than $3.5 million in partner compensation from Wilmer since 2016, according to federal ethics disclosures she filed in 2017 and in 2018. Rhee rejoined the firm in 2011 after a two-year stint at Main Justice, where she had been a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. The Yale Law School graduate first joined Wilmer in 2006 from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

“As an Asian-American woman, I am often not expected to be a fierce litigator,” Rhee said in a 2014 spotlight at The Diversity Journal. “It takes that extra effort on my part, when I meet with clients face-to-face, to have them see me in action to convey how my ethnicity, gender, stature, and the like do not at all prevent me from being a formidable advocate.”

Rhee is the latest high-profile partner hire at Paul Weiss.

Her arrival comes just weeks after former U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch joined the firm as a partner in New York. In January, the heavyweight appellate lawyer Kannon Shanmugam left Williams & Connolly to become managing partner of Paul Weiss’ growing Washington office.

“I think my vision for the office is that I want Paul Weiss to be the best place to be a litigator in D.C.,” Shanmugam told The National Law Journal in a recent interview. “I really want this to be the best little law firm in Washington, that’s kind of how I think about it, and to have all of the benefits of a boutique-type practice within one of the world’s greatest law firms.”

Other former members of Mueller’s team are returning to law firms and other posts since the Russia investigation culminated in a 448-page report published in April. The investigation documented connections between Russia and Trump’s presidential campaign, but prosecutors did not recommend criminal charges. Mueller’s team also showed what they believed were obstructive acts taken by Trump to thwart the investigation. The report said that while no charges were being recommended, Trump was not being exonerated.

Another prosecutor on Mueller’s team, Greg Andres, returned to Davis Polk & Wardwell earlier this year. Andres played a lead role in the prosecution of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, on charges related to his lobbying work for Ukraine. Manafort is serving a prison sentence of more than seven years for charges brought in Washington and in Virginia.

Michael Dreeben, who joined the Mueller team from the Justice Department’s solicitor general’s office, has announced plans to retire from government service. Dreeben, formerly a deputy solicitor general and one of the department’s top criminal-law experts, has not said where he is going next. Dreeben has been a DOJ lawyer for some 30 years.

Andrew Weissmann, a former top fraud section prosecutor at Main Justice, has taken a post teaching at New York University School of Law. Weissmann, also formerly a Jenner & Block partner and general counsel to the FBI, is reportedly out with a book proposal, according to CNN. The book will recount Weissmann’s work on Mueller’s team, The New York Times reported Friday.

Mueller, meanwhile, has not announced his plans. He joined Wilmer in 2014 from the FBI, where he had served as director for more than a decade.

Report: Detroit Land Bank had $500,000 in legal costs for investigation of demolition program

The Detroit Land Bank Authority had more than $500,000 in legal expenses amid a federal investigation into the city's multimillion-dollar demolition program, the Detroit Free Press reported.

The newspaper said its analysis of legal invoices through April 8, obtained under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, found the land bank paid the money to two firms to represent it, the city and the Detroit Building Authority. WilmerHale and Miller Canfield were paid $537,414 for legal representation since June 29, 2016, the report says.

The land bank defended the amount, saying: "the top priority is to make sure we comply fully with the investigation."

Detroit has received $258 million in federal funding since 2013 to target blight by tearing down vacant structures. The investigation has led to guilty pleas.

On Thursday, Mayor Mike Duggan said he would seek a $200 million bond to help Detroit continue demolitions and eliminate blight in five years.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©