Showing posts sorted by date for query Rod Rosenstein. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Rod Rosenstein. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, June 11, 2020

Prelude To Detroit: Noel Francisco & His Battle To Cover Up Gerrymandering

Remember when I told you Noel Francisco sucked?

Do you remember how I went into ad nausuem detail of how Noel is a co-conspirator in the  Michigan Emergency Manager Law, Detroit Bankruptcy, Detroit Grand Bargain, Detroit Land Bank Authority, TARP, election interference, campaign fraud, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Parental Rights, Catholic Charities, trafficking tiny humans in foster care and adoption?

No?

Well, I guess you will just have to wait for the tale of stealin' the children, land & vote , otherwise known as gerrymandering, where he argued that it was a legal act for redistricting, to be told, again, because we are in Detroit and I have preserved the history.

#maytheheavensfall 

Solicitor General Noel Francisco Expected to Step Down


WASHINGTON — Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, the Justice Department official responsible for defending the Trump administration before the Supreme Court, has told the department that he plans to leave, a person familiar with his decision said late Wednesday.

Mr. Francisco’s top deputy, Jeff Wall, will most likely step in as acting solicitor general as the White House searches for a replacement.

While it is not unusual for solicitors general to leave as the Supreme Court winds down its term, Mr. Francisco would be the second high-ranking official to depart in the coming months.

On Monday, Brian A. Benczkowski, the head of the department’s criminal division, announced that he would leave in July. While at the department, he has worked to stem the nation’s opioid crisis and handled the politically charged referral of a whistle-blower complaint about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine.

The person who spoke of Mr. Francisco’s planned departure did so on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment early Thursday. CNN first reported Mr. Francisco’s decision to leave.

Since Mr. Francisco, 50, was confirmed as solicitor general in September 2017, he has gone before the Supreme Court to argue some of the most controversial positions taken by the Trump administration, most notably Mr. Trump’s decision in his first week in office to ban people from several predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States.

The travel ban set off a firestorm in the Justice Department when Sally Q. Yates, then the acting attorney general, refused to comply and was fired. The Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that Mr. Trump had the authority to impose the ban.

The solicitor general got his start in high-level Republican politics when he joined the legal team of George W. Bush, then a presidential candidate, during the 2000 Florida election recount. Mr. Francisco served in Mr. Bush’s administration until leaving in 2005 for Jones Day, the white-shoe law firm that has produced several Trump administration legal hires, including Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel.

Much of Mr. Francisco’s tenure at the Justice Department was overshadowed by the investigation of the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, who was looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election, any ties between Russia and the Trump campaign, and whether Mr. Trump tried to obstruct the inquiry.

The investigation, which lasted nearly two years, so enraged the president over that time that department officials worried he would fire the special counsel or the top officials overseeing it.

The attorney general at the start of the Mueller inquiry, Jeff Sessions, had recused himself from Russia matters, and the associate attorney general, Rachel L. Brand, resigned in early 2018. That placed Mr. Francisco squarely in the line of succession to oversee the Russia investigation should Mr. Trump fire Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who had appointed and oversaw Mr. Mueller.

This May, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Congress from seeing redacted portions of the special counsel’s report that contained grand jury information. Democrats had argued that they needed the materials as part of their impeachment proceedings against the president. Mr. Francisco had argued that the materials should not be released because Congress did not have the right to obtain grand jury materials as part of an impeachment proceeding.

Most recently, Mr. Francisco wrote a brief asking an appeals panel to force Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to grant the Justice Department’s motion to withdraw its case against Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser.

Mr. Francisco essentially argued that the courts did not have the authority to reject prosecutorial decisions made by the executive branch.

After the Justice Department said it wished to withdraw its case against Mr. Flynn, who had twice pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I., Judge Sullivan tapped John Gleeson, a former mob prosecutor and federal judge, to argue against the government’s position.

Mr. Gleeson said on Wednesday that the government’s motion should not be granted and that the decision to withdraw the Flynn case was a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” and a political act meant to help an ally of the president’s.

But if the appeals panel agrees with Mr. Francisco and forces Judge Sullivan to grant the motion to withdraw, Mr. Gleeson’s argument could be moot.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, June 4, 2020

The Legal Geniuses Of House Judiciary & Senate Homeland Security Are Still Trying To Figure Out How The Mueller Probe All Started

Whilst Jim Jordan and his merry band of "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee struggle with the understanding that they already know the origins of the Mueller investigation, the Senate Homeland Security is about to subpoena all your favorite, outlandish characters, and a few who are not, like My Memo Man, who shall commence to bearing false witness, under sworn oaths, in the public record, but, hey, what do I know?

I know Mittens knows.

Why not tell Lil' Jim how it all started.

#maytheheavensfall


Senate Republicans approve subpoenas for ex-Obama officials on Russia probe origins

Democrats are decrying the investigation as election-year politics meant to rewrite the narrative of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

WASHINGTON – The Senate Homeland Security Committee on Thursday authorized the issuing of nearly three dozen subpoenas of Obama administration officials as part of Senate Republicans' investigation into the origins of the FBI and special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Trump campaign.

The Judiciary Committee, meanwhile, met to consider more than 50 additional subpoenas, but postponed action until next week.

Republicans on the panels are looking into flaws in FISA application process, the “unmasking” of Trump campaign and transition officials, including ex-national security adviser Michael Flynn, and the FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign more broadly — actions that President Donald Trump has collectively dubbed “Obamagate” and dismissed as a "hoax" and a "witch hunt."

“There are times when extraordinary situations require action whether or not we all agree,” Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., said. “The conduct we know that occurred during the transition should concern everyone and absolutely warrants further investigation.”

Democrats are decrying the investigation as election-year politics meant to rewrite the narrative of special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, which concluded that while the Trump campaign did not conspire with the Russians, it had numerous contacts with Russians and, in some cases, welcomed their assistance.

“I’m disappointed that our committee is once again meeting to discuss a partisan investigation,” said Homeland Security ranking Democrat Gary Peters of Michigan. “I’m concerned about the timing of this investigation that did not become a priority until we entered into an election year.”

Tom Carper, D-Del., said in a statement that he refused to attend the meeting out of frustration that the committee is “trying to score political points and help a president in an election year.”

While 35 subpoenas were authorized by the Homeland Security Committee along party lines, Republican Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Mitt Romney of Utah expressed reservations. Romney said he continues “to be concerned that this is politically motivated.”

The Homeland Security and Judiciary committees are considering issuing subpoenas for former CIA Director John Brennan, ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former Obama chief of staff Dennis McDonough, former national security adviser Susan Rice and ex-FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

The Judiciary panel is also considering subpoenas for current FBI Director Christopher Wray and former Justice Department officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and ex-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Judiciary member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked Democrats on the panel to consider how they would feel if the situation were reversed and the Trump administration were looking into the former Vice President Joe Biden's presidential campaign.

"Pause for a second and imagine how you would feel if Donald J Trump was doing exactly what Barack Obama and Joe Biden did," Cruz said. "So right now, are you guys copacetic with Trump putting wiretaps on the Joe Biden presidential campaign? Everything cool if Trump has the FBI send in agents wearing wires to the Joe Biden campaign? That's all good?"

On Wednesday, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified before the Judiciary Committee as part of its probe. He said in hindsight he would not have approved a FISA warrant for Trump campaign official Carter Page, but continued to defend the Mueller probe

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

My Memo Man Rod Rosenstein Testifies On Mueller Russia Investigation

Watch Senate trying to figure out if they are part of the Mueller investigation.

Go forth, My Memo Man, for you were falsely advised by "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Where is the JonesDay legal team representing the Trump Campaign.

#perkinscoiesucks

#sealsmatter

#maytheheavensfall


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, January 11, 2020

Sharyl Attkisson Attempts To Assail The Armorial Of Rod Rosenstein

For the last few weeks, I have been observing what I like to call the team of Trollie Trolls, quite professional, who happen to like to forage through my archives.

I found them to be fascinating as their patterns were quickly identified.

Sometimes, I would even leave delightful morsels of information for them to digest, just so I could see what kind of crap they would excrete.

Well, lo and behold, it looks like we have a new queen of privatization, and thine name is Sharyl Attkisson.

Alas, the Errant Queen Sharyl (EQS) has given the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed the Great Saddy Face, for she attempts to defrock My Memo Man, Rod Rosenstein, and strip him of his right to bearing his armorialties.

Notice, I said, "attempts", because no one touches My Memo Man.

EQS, definitely not to be confused with 'esquire', has contemporaneously filed a suit of law against My Memo Man as he takes on his new roll in corporate litigation.

Rod Rosenstein Has New Friends In Baltimore

EQS deflated my excitement for Rod's new career in the filing of her action against him.

Former CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson announced yesterday that she is suing former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for illegally spying on her during the Obama year.  Rosenstein and other Deep State dirty cops are identified in her filing.

Yes, Boys & Girls, we are dealing with "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) for the following reasons:
  • The proper party would have been The United States;
  • She got her information from Twitter that does not even have blue check;
  • She was attempting to civilly sue the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, for criminal actions, based upon her reporting on active investigations, as a CBS reporter, where CBS obviously did not want to represent her, and lost her appeal;
  • She was never called to testify in congressional hearings;
  • She is the only one in the entire universe who has exposed:
    • Fast & Furious;
    • Benghazi;
    • Russiagate;
    • Ukrainegate; and,
    • Mueller Election Interference Investigation.
  • She was mean to my Sweetie, as seen in her propaganda video, below.

I just find it odd that she claims to be a seasoned reporter, yet has not once, reached out to me, or even cite my name, as the original source, to what she has stated as claims in her lawsuits.

She promulgates lies for money because it is quite obvious she is not doing this to further her career, because, if she was, she would not be engaging in such unethical activities as enjoining with the other co-conspirators.

I guess the old adage is true that some people will do anything for a dollar, but, now, she has the crap tank, Heritage Foundation, behind her, and My Memo Man has me to defend his honor.

Who said chivalry was gender specific?

If the lady wishes to repurpose herself as a regal, fake ass whistleblower, well, by golly, then the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed shall grant her wish and make her superstar.

From the looks of her claims, there seems to be viable possibility that she was under federal investigation for her questionable activities and associations.

FUN FACT! THE DAILY SIGNAL IS NOT REGISTERED IN ANY STATE AS A BUSINESS


That is correct, The Daily Signal is what I like to call a Corporate Shape Shifter, where the Heritage Foundation is using it as a front to fund political campaigns with foreign money, more than likely, from stealin' the children, land and vote.

I see the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a tool to use corporate parental rights for the trafficking of tiny humans,.

I also see Emperor Pence, which is why I have donned upon Sharyl, the appellation of EQS.


I will take the greatest pleasure running up your new employer's legal bills and shuttering that crap tank, and I will preserve your name in the annals of history, giving you all the credit.

You were mean to My Memo Man.

That is not nice; that is an act of sedition.

HERITAGE FOUNDATION LAUNCHES NATIONAL NEWS SITE FEATURING SHARYL ATTKISSON

2014_06_03_SAvideothumb-800x420WASHINGTON - What Illinois Review strives to do on a state issues level, Heritage Foundation is now launching at a national level - a new source of balanced news reporting. The Daily Signal has taken on CBS' ex-reporter Sharyl Attkisson as senior independent contributor. In an exclusive interview, Attkisson says the news media are heading down a dangerous path with attempts to “censor or block stories” that don’t align with their preferred agenda.

With major topics such as Benghazi, Common Core, Cronyism and ObamaCare, they'll be updating daily and adding to the national news front. From Bloomberg BusinessWeek:

Now Heritage has a new plan to exert its influence and, its leaders hope, win converts to the cause. On June 3 it will begin publishing the Daily Signal, a new digital news site whose primary focus will be straight reporting. “We came to the realization that the mainstream media had really abdicated the responsibility to do the news and do it well,” says Geoffrey Lysaught, vice president of strategic communications at the Heritage Foundation, who will also serve as publisher. The site aims to rectify the conservative perception that mainstream news slants to the left. “We plan to do political and policy news,” says Lysaught, “not with a conservative bent, but just true, straight-down-the-middle journalism.”

How does this help Heritage? The Daily Signal will also publish an opinion section aimed at a younger audience that isn’t thumbing through the editorial pages of theWall Street Journal. Heritage is betting that these readers, attracted to the Daily Signal’s news, will find themselves persuaded by the conservative commentary and analysis that will draw on the think tank’s scholars and researchers.






Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Rod Rosenstein Has New Friends In Baltimore

Image result for rod rosenstein
"Watch me make history."
My Memo Man, Rod Rosenstein, is in Baltimore, in a corporate law firm, with lots of new friends and Sally Yates.

Can you say "Land Bank"?

How about 2018 election interference.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if we are all very nice, My Memo Man will say "gerrymandering".

I would throw out "drugs, weapons, and tiny humans", but that would give away the mystery as to why he took the position.

I never did like Sally Yates because she took a peculiar stance in a piece she wrote, while at DOJ, entitled, "Poverty is not a crime" and failed to acknowledge where she got that line, then turned around and bastardized it by not making one single reference to child welfare.

She was mean to my Sweetie.

It seems I did not preserve her writings, neither did the DOJ.

My Memo Man is busy, busy, busy.

Stay tuned.

Former U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein Joins King & Spalding as a Partner in Washington, D.C.

Rosenstein is the latest high-ranking Justice Department official to join the firm’s Special Matters & Government Investigations team; he will work closely with a deep bench of former federal prosecutors and senior government officials to help clients with their most challenging litigation, enforcement and reputational issues.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 8, 2020 — King & Spalding today announced that former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein joins the firm’s Washington, D.C., office as a partner on its Special Matters & Government Investigations team.

Rosenstein spent almost two decades in senior legal management and leadership positions at the U.S. Department of Justice during the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, including as Deputy Attorney General (2017 to 2019) and United States Attorney (2005 to 2017). Prior to his appointment as the Department’s second-highest ranking official, he was the longest-serving Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorney in recent history.

“Rod Rosenstein is an exceptional trial lawyer, strategist and leader with unquestioned integrity and toughness,” said Robert D. Hays, Jr., chairman of King & Spalding. “His arrival underscores the firm’s longstanding commitment to effective advocacy on the most complex and highest stakes government-related matters. Our clients will benefit from the unique experience of Rod and other senior government officials working together as a team. His arrival reflects the firm’s intent to continue building leading practices led by extraordinary lawyers to serve clients on their most pressing and sensitive needs.”

With his vast prosecutorial and enforcement background, Rosenstein becomes another critical member of King & Spalding’s Special Matters & Government Investigations team, which assists clients—corporate, institutional and individual—in sensitive and reputational legal challenges, including many involving government agencies, legislative bodies or state Attorneys General. In the past two years, the firm has significantly ramped up the group with an all-star roster of former senior Justice Department officials, including former Deputy U.S. Attorney General Sally Yates, former U.S. Attorneys Zachary Fardon and John Horn, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Alicia O’Brien and former FBI Chief of Staff Zack Harmon. Other former senior officials recently joining the firm include former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former General Counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and acting USTR Stephen Vaughn.

Rosenstein said, “I worked with many current and former firm lawyers in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and I learned that some of the best lawyers in the world work at King & Spalding. When considering where to go after leaving the Department of Justice, it became clear to me why so many former government officials choose this firm. With an unparalleled depth of experience across its practice groups and a long and distinguished record of success in courtrooms, King & Spalding is a bipartisan firm that focuses on helping clients resolve complex and sensitive matters in the United States and abroad. The inclusive and collaborative culture allows every client to benefit from the broad expertise and deep insight of more than 1,100 exceptional lawyers throughout the firm’s 21 offices. I look forward to working with my new colleagues to expand the firm’s government investigations, national security and cybersecurity practices.” 

As Deputy U.S. Attorney General, Rosenstein formulated and implemented Department policies and programs; coordinated interactions with the White House and other federal agencies, the Judiciary, and the Congress; interacted with state, local, and foreign government leaders; and provided supervision and direction to all Department components, including its litigating divisions and law enforcement agencies.

Rosenstein conducted complex investigations and handled litigation in trial and appellate courtrooms as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department’s Tax Division (2001 to 2005), as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland (1997 to 2001), and as an Associate Independent Counsel (1995 to 1997).

Rosenstein started his legal career in 1989, as a law clerk to Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He first joined the Department of Justice as a trial attorney in the prestigious Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division (1990 to 1993), before serving as counsel to the Deputy Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division (1993 to 1995). In these and other roles, he received dozens of awards and honors for his performance. In addition, Rosenstein gained impressive trial experience while representing the United States at 23 jury trials and arguing 21 appeals in various appellate courts around the country, including the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court criminal case of Chavez-Meza v. United States, in which the Court ruled in favor of his argument.

“Rod deserves his well-earned reputation for being decisive and unflappable in extraordinary professional situations,” said Special Matters practice chair Wick Sollers. “His experiences conducting and supervising large criminal and civil litigation uniquely qualify him to counsel and defend clients facing complex investigations, lawsuits and enforcement matters. Clients will benefit from his big-picture perspective, as well as his insights from having updated, improved and formulated federal law enforcement policies on corporate and white-collar enforcement, national security, CFIUS and cyber-digital issues. King & Spalding’s Special Matters & Government Investigations team is stronger with his addition.”

Rosenstein graduated from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, with a B.S. in Economics, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. He earned his J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

About King & Spalding
Celebrating more than 130 years of service, King & Spalding is an international law firm that represents a broad array of clients, including half of the Fortune Global 100, with more than 1,100 lawyers in 21 offices in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. The firm has handled matters in over 160 countries on six continents and is consistently recognized for the results it obtains, uncompromising commitment to quality, and dedication to understanding the business and culture of its clients. More information is available at www.kslaw.com.

After Trump administration stint, Baltimore is still on Rod Rosenstein’s mind

As he takes a job with a high-profile law firm, Maryland’s former longtime U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein isn’t looking to talk much about his time with the Trump administration. He’s turned down book offers, and avoids questions on the subject.

If he did write a book, Rosenstein told The Baltimore Sun Wednesday, “it would probably be a lot about Baltimore.”

The city remains on the former deputy U.S. attorney general’s mind, after 12 years leading federal law enforcement efforts that he said were key to the city experiencing fewer than 200 homicides in 2011. (There were 348 homicides in the city last year.) He remains in touch with protege Robert K. Hur, who succeeded him as U.S. attorney for Maryland.

“It’s important for everybody at the federal, state and local level to agree that reducing murders is a priority,” Rosenstein said. “I’m hopeful they’ll get back to where we were before ... but it’s going to take a long time.”

The law firm of King & Spalding announced that Rosenstein will join its special government investigations team, following about eight months he spent with his family after stepping down as deputy attorney general. Rosenstein said it was Maryland’s former Republican governor Robert Ehrlich who helped connect him to the new job after they had lunch in the summer.

Rosenstein’s tumultuous two-year tenure included writing a memo supporting the firing of FBI Director James Comey and overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

[Read more] Before leaving Baltimore, Rod Rosenstein predicted he might not last long as deputy attorney general »
Of his tenure, Rosenstein said, “I’ve been out of government for eight months, and I’m on to a new career. ... I’m practicing law, not politics."

Rosenstein has continued to weigh in on Baltimore’s crime rates and on issues of law enforcement. On Jan. 1, he tweeted: “When Baltimore City prosecutors and police worked with federal and state partners to send every violent repeat offender to prison in 2011, only 197 people were murdered. Now criminals murder 350 victims and shoot hundreds more every year. WHAT CHANGED?”


Rosenstein maintains other ties to the city — he was scheduled to speak to a city law club, the Serjeants’ Inn, Wednesday night.

Rosenstein noted that the number of federal prosecutors in Baltimore increased significantly when he was No. 2 at the Justice Department.

“That’s not because I was showing favoritism; we had additional resources and were able to allocate them based on population and crime rates and need,” he said.

He said Hur is “doing a superb job,” and suggested, without citing specific agencies, that other law enforcement partners are not on the same page.

“If people are not being caught and prosecuted locally, they need to find out why that is,” Rosenstein said. “We had a decade of sustained improvements in Baltimore. We had improvements in Prince George’s County [as well] — the PG County improvements have stuck; they have not fallen back. Baltimore is worse today than when I got there 15 years ago.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Lisa Page Has Disturbed My Memo Man, Rod Rosenstein

Egads!

How dare Lisa Page disturb My Memo Man, Rod Rosenstein.

The Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is pleased, for My Memo Man bears the armorality of the U.S. Department of Justice to legally represent the United States.

Just because he is no longer an 'employee' of the United States, does not necessarily mean he is not beholden his oath of office.

You, also, swore an oath of office, Lisa, dear, but have breached the children's trust.

Do not let My Memo Man get all Ecclesiastic on your ass, because he is highly versed in the perfection of prayers and knows how to deliver My Memos to the heavens.

“To the best of my knowledge, career Department of Justice officials determined in December 2017 that those text messages were NOT personal,” he wrote. “They were official government records related to FBI business and there was no legal basis to withhold them, so they should be released as requested by Congress.” said My Memo Man

Lisa, precious, you made My Memo Man deliver a response to the Daily Beast.

Why would you do that, Lisa?

Memo Man does not come out for soundbytes or photo ops, like you, which means you gave him the Great Saddy Face.

So, you have Matt Whitaker, Trey Gowdy and now, Rod Rosenstein, who have perfected the Trinity of Seals to protect to children's trust, and that is why the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed is very pleased.

Unlike you, My Errant Knights are not going to desecrate their sworn oaths, which is what you have done, Lisa.

We have a name, and statutes, for that, called treason.

Ooooooo.......that was not a good thing to do, Lisa.


#maytheheavensfall

Rod Rosenstein: DOJ ‘Not to Blame’ for Lisa Page’s Abuse

DON’T LOOK AT US

"May the heavens fall to protect the children's trust."
said Rod "My Memo Man" Rosenstein
The former deputy attorney general says he had no choice but to release Page’s texts with FBI agent Peter Strzok.

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Monday that ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page should not blame the Department of Justice for the abuse she has suffered at the hands of Donald Trump and his allies.

Rosenstein’s comments come in response to an exclusive interview with Page by Daily Beast contributor Molly Jong-Fast, in which Page blasted the Justice Department for making public texts between her and agent Peter Strzok.

Page alleged the messages—in which Page and Strzok, who were having an affair, belittled then-candidate Donald Trump—were chosen and released for political impact. Trump went on to publicly ridicule the “lovers” over and over again in the two years since their release.

In a statement to The Daily Beast, Rosenstein said that there was no political motive to the disclosure and that he had no choice but to release the texts, which had been the subject of an Inspector General’s investigation into possible political bias.

“To the best of my knowledge, career Department of Justice officials determined in December 2017 that those text messages were NOT personal,” he wrote. “They were official government records related to FBI business and there was no legal basis to withhold them, so they should be released as requested by Congress.”

Rosenstein said the IG’s office had “no objection” to releasing the messages.

“I consistently defended the right of Department of Justice employees to express political opinions and even make political contributions,” he continued. “However, the Inspector General concluded that the FBI employees ‘demonstrated extremely poor judgment and a gross lack of professionalism’ by exchanging messages that ‘appeared to mix political opinions with discussions about the [Hillary Clinton email] and Russia investigations, raising a question as to whether Strzok’s and Page’s political opinions may have affected investigative decisions.’”

“Ms. Page received more opprobrium than she deserved for her mistakes,” he added. “But the Department of Justice is not to blame.”

In her interview, Page says the release of the text messages destroyed life as she knew it, driving her out of the FBI and making her a Trump rally punchline.

“It’s like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening,” she said.

“But it’s also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there’s no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he’s still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”

Her complaints apparently fell on deaf ears at the White House. In an apparent reaction to The Daily Beast story, Trump tweeted about Page on Monday afternoon.

Roger Stone Guilty of Lying to Congress to Protect Trump
“When Lisa Page, the lover of Peter Strzok, talks about being ‘crushed’, and how innocent she is, ask her to read Peter’s “Insurance Policy” text, to her, just in case Hillary loses,” he wrote. “Also, why were the lovers text messages scrubbed after he left Mueller. Where are they Lisa?”

The text Trump referred to was from Strzok to Page and read: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

While Trump and his allies have claimed this is proof of a “deep-state” conspiracy against him, Page and Strzok have testified that it actually referred to Strzok’s belief the Russia investigation should be on the fast-track and not put on a slow burn because it appeared unlikely, at that point, that Trump would win.

Trump has also alleged that text messages from Page and Strzok were deliberately erased because, he said, they would have discredited Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Politifact reported that an outside expert hired by the Justice Department inspector general found technical glitches likely accounted for the missing messages.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, December 2, 2019

Lisa Page & Her First Child Welfare Propaganda Psyoptic Cover Up

Lisa, my dearest....

You know I know that you know....

I shall assign you a C-, for you shall have to do much better than this, Precious....

Did Melanie Sloane help you with this one?

Just asking.

Seriously, this crap was an hilarious attempt at child welfare overt, dstractionary psyoptic like that #MeToo psyoptic.

This is about trafficking tiny humans.

Keep it real, girl, because you know you read the Detroit texts,

Try to impress me on your next psyoptic.

This is about Parental Rights.

#maytheheavensfall

The Last Russian Adoption



Strongsville international adoption agency raided by FBI


Image result for lisa page
Pretty, pretty Lisa Page

Lisa Page Speaks: ‘There’s No Fathomable Way I Have Committed Any Crime at All’STRIKING BACK


EXCLUSIVE
Photo Illustration by Kelly Caminero/The Daily Beast
The former FBI lawyer and ongoing Trump target breaks two years of silence in this exclusive interview. And she has quite a lot to say.

Molly Jong-Fast
Updated Dec. 01, 2019 9:32PM ET / Published Dec. 01, 2019 7:59PM ET
It’s not often that you interview a subject who has no interest in being famous. But recently, I did just that when I sat down with Lisa Page the week before Thanksgiving in my hotel room in Washington. Page, of course, is the former FBI lawyer whose text-message exchanges with agent Peter Strzok that belittled Donald Trump and expressed fear at his possible victory became international news. They were hijacked by Trump to fuel his “deep-state” conspiracy.

For the nearly two years since her name first made the papers, she’s been publicly silent (she did have a closed-door interview with House members in July 2018). I asked her why she was willing to talk now. “Honestly, his demeaning fake orgasm was really the straw that broke the camel’s back,” she says. The president called out her name as he acted out an orgasm in front of thousands of people at a Minneapolis rally on Oct. 11, 2019.

Advertisement


That was the moment Page decided she had to speak up. “I had stayed quiet for years hoping it would fade away, but instead it got worse,” she says. “It had been so hard not to defend myself, to let people who hate me control the narrative. I decided to take my power back.”

She is also about to be back in the news cycle in a big way. On Dec. 9, the Justice Department Inspector General report into Trump’s charges that the FBI spied on his 2016 campaign will come out. Leaked press accounts indicate that the report will exonerate Page of the allegation that she acted unprofessionally or showed bias against Trump.

How does it feel after all this time to finally have the IG apparently affirm what she’s been saying all along? She said she wouldn’t discuss the findings until they were officially public, but she did note: “While it would be nice to have the IG confirm publicly that my personal opinions had absolutely no bearing on the course of the Russia investigations, I don’t kid myself that the fact will matter very much for a lot of people. The president has a very loud megaphone.”

Page, 39, is thin and athletic. She speaks in an exceedingly confident, clear, and lawyerly way. But having been through the MAGA meat grinder has clearly worn her down, not unlike the other women I’ve met who’ve been subjected to the president’s abuse.  She is just slightly crumbly around the edges the way the president’s other victims are. 

My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again.
“It’s almost impossible to describe” what it’s like, she told me. “It's like being punched in the gut. My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He’s demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening.”

“But it's also very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States. And when the president accuses you of treason by name, despite the fact that I know there's no fathomable way that I have committed any crime at all, let alone treason, he's still somebody in a position to actually do something about that. To try to further destroy my life. It never goes away or stops, even when he’s not publicly attacking me.”

Advertisement


Does it affect you in your normal day-to-day life?

“I wish it didn’t,” she said. “I'm someone who’s always in my head anyway – so now otherwise normal interactions take on a different meaning. Like, when somebody makes eye contact with me on the Metro, I kind of wince, wondering if it’s because they recognize me, or are they just scanning the train like people do? It’s immediately a question of friend or foe? Or if I’m walking down the street or shopping and there’s somebody wearing Trump gear or a MAGA hat, I’ll walk the other way or try to put some distance between us because I’m not looking for conflict. Really, what I wanted most in this world is my life back.”


Rising Through the Ranks
Lisa Page did not aspire to fame or fortune. She was, she says, “one of those nerdy kids who from very early on knew I wanted work for the government and make the world a better place.” Born in the San Fernando Valley, she and her family moved to Ohio in her teens. She went to American University in Washington and then moved back home to central Ohio to attend law school, living with her parents so she could save money.

After graduating from law school, she was one of an elite group selected for admission in the Department of Justice Honors Program in 2006—and the only woman in her class of five entering the Criminal Division. She worked as a federal prosecutor for six years before moving across the street to the FBI’s office of general counsel. Soon after her arrival, the deputy general counsel over national security law hired her for a new special counsel-type position in 2013.

Once there, her path begins to be set.

“I start [in the role] in early 2013, and there are two big events that kind of set the trajectory for the rest of my career at the FBI: the Boston bombing in April 2013, and Edward Snowden’s leaks in June of the same year,” she told me. “And those are both significant in their own ways, because the Boston bombing introduces me to Andy McCabe, who at the time was the head of the counterterrorism division at the FBI. Two months later, the Snowden leaks hit, which became a transformative moment for the intelligence community, setting off a series of reforms by the Obama administration with respect to the legal authorities that we rely on to collect intelligence.”

Eventually, she was asked to lead that effort, “which gives me a lot of exposure to senior FBI executives, as well as leaders through the IC, DOJ, and White House.”


Page continued to rise through the ranks of the FBI and was assigned to more significant and substantive work. She became close with McCabe. Eventually she became McCabe’s special counsel.

Hillary’s Emails and Russia—All At once
RELATED IN POLITICS

New Kavanaugh Book: Sen. Feinstein Dithered on Ford Letter

Judge Rules Don McGahn Must Testify in Impeachment

I Did Time for Phone-Jamming for the RNC—They’re at It Again
By February 2016, she was working on one of the most important investigations at the FBI–the Hillary Clinton email case. “We knew that the case was going to get picked apart,” she says. “And we know there's not a person on the FBI team or the DOJ team who thinks this is not the right result. There is no case to be brought here. But it’s very busy. It’s very intense. Director [James] Comey was very clear he wanted this completed as soon as humanly possible and outside of the political environment. So there was a real focus to get it done before the conventions that were happening that summer. And so that’s what we did.”

The Greatest Trick the Trumpists Ever Pulled
J'ACCUSE!
Molly Jong-Fast

“But her emails” would soon give way to an actual threat to national security, one that existed not in the fever dreams of Fox and the Breitbart comments section, but in the real, dangerous world the FBI exists to protect us from, where things like foreign meddling in our elections takes place: strong evidence of Russian interference in the election on behalf of Trump.


“There are two things that happen in the late summer of 2016,” Page says. “The first, of course, is that the FBI gets the predication [courtesy of loose-lipped George Papadopoulos], which starts the Russian investigation. We learn about the possibility that there’s someone on the Trump campaign coordinating with the Russian government in the release of emails, which will damage the Clinton campaign.”

“Predication” sounds mild for what it really means; in the summer of 2016, the FBI and the intelligence community were seeing increasing signs from a variety of intelligence sources and programs (that Page cannot and will not discuss due to classification reasons) that members of the Trump campaign were tied to a variety of Russian intelligence services, and that the Russian Federation was in the midst of trying to manipulate the 2016 United States election with a sweeping information warfare and propaganda effort. As The New York Times reported on Nov. 22, “U.S. intel services concluded, and have told Senate Republicans, that Russia mounted a massive disinformation campaign to implicate Ukraine in 2016 meddling and hide its own role.”

At the end of July 2016 Page finds herself transitioning from one investigation, the Hillary Clinton email inquiry, to another the Russian government disinformation probe. The president is not under investigation, but the FBI is trying to determine if someone associated with his campaign is working with Russia.

“We were very deliberate and conservative about who we first opened on because we recognized how sensitive a situation it was,” Page says. “So the prospect that we were spying on the campaign or even investigating candidate Trump himself is just false. That’s not what we were doing.”


Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty
From Anonymity to Infamy

From summer 2016 to spring 2017, Page worked for McCabe, who had become deputy director. They were very busy, but things were largely normal. And then, on May 9, 2017, FBI Director Comey was fired. What was that like?

“It was horrible,” Page said. “It was a devastating moment at the FBI. It was like a funeral, only worse, because at least when someone dies, you get to come together and celebrate and talk about that person. He was still alive. But he was inaccessible to us. It jolted the ranks and the investigation. It was so abrupt. He was there one day and gone the next.”

Was that very unusual?

“Well, I mean, all of it was!” she replied. “The FBI director had just been fired. Yes, it was totally within the authority of the president, but it was unprecedented and unimaginable given the circumstances. The president fired him with the knowledge that, of course, we were investigating Russian contacts with his campaign. I mean, it just gave the aura of an obstructive effort.”

Page would have probably just been another FBI lawyer if it wasn’t for the extraordinarily politicized environment and a President who had a habit of attacking career government employees. Page, like many other targets of Trump’s wrath, felt the pressure both from the external force of his massive social media presence, but also from within the government.

“At the end of July in 2017, I am informed by the DOJ Inspector General's office that I’m under investigation for political text messages and honestly, I have no idea what they're talking about,” she told me. “I have no recollection. And initially they’re very coy about it. They don’t tell me much about it. I don't have the first clue what they're talking about. What I do know is that my text messages will reveal that I had previously had an affair. I’m overwhelmed by dread and embarrassment at the prospect that OIG investigators, Andy, and my colleagues, now know or could learn about this deeply personal secret.”


She doesn’t think for a minute that her texts with Peter Strzok are too political. They are largely devoted to work and to talking about family members and various articles they read. The few texts that so convulsed the Republicans involved Page asking for reassurance that Trump wouldn’t become president, and Strzok replying with “No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.” Glenn Kessler wrote in The Washington Post that “some of the texts reflect a deep animus toward Trump and the way he conducted himself during the 2016 campaign.”

Having an opinion and sharing that opinion publicly or privately with another person is squarely within the permissible bounds of the Hatch Act.
She is convinced that she’s followed the rules. She is after all a lawyer and knows that she is a restricted employee under the Hatch Act and can’t engage in partisan political activity. “And I know I’m nowhere close to that,” she says. “I don’t engage in any sort of partisan politicking at all. But having an opinion and sharing that opinion publicly or privately with another person is squarely within the permissible bounds of the Hatch Act. It’s in the regs. Yeah, it says it plainly. I’m thinking, I know I’m a federal employee, but I retain my First Amendment rights. So I'm really not all that worried about it.”

So she hires a lawyer and meets with the IG, who interviews her a number of times. A very small number of people at the FBI know about the investigation, and it stays a secret for six months, and it remains a secret for six months, until the day after Michael Flynn pleads guilty. Then in early December 2017, the day after Michael Flynn pleads guilty, a story comes out about Page being under investigation for political bias—and it includes the affair. The affair was not part of IG’s investigation and not part of their review.

The Inspector General’s office had guaranteed Page and Strzok that the affair would not be made public. But then, The Washington Post included the affair in its story. And in a slip of a second, Page goes from being an anonymous government lawyer to playing an unwilling and recurring role in Trump’s twisted tweetstorms.

“So now I have to deal with the aftermath of having the most wrong thing I’ve ever done in my life become public,” she says. “And that’s when I become the source of the president’s personal mockery and insults. Because before this moment in time, there’s not a person outside of my small legal community who knows who I am or what I do. I’m a normal public servant, just a G-15, standard-level lawyer, like every other lawyer at the Justice Department.”

And despite how awful that felt, Page had no idea it was going to get much, much worse.

Trump’s ‘Truly Reprehensible...Stunt’
“After this comes out, there's a firestorm, of course, and now the president and the Republicans on the Hill latch on to this, and it becomes about political bias,” she explains. “A week or two later, Rod Rosenstein [then the deputy attorney general] was scheduled to testify on the Hill. And the night before his testimony, the Justice Department spokesperson, Sarah Flores, calls the beat reporters into the Justice Department. This is late at night on a weekday. Calls them in to provide a cherry-picked selection of my text messages to review and report on in advance of Rod Rosenstein going to the Hill the next morning.”

Lisa Page Took Rosenstein’s Trump Tape Talk Seriously
TAPEGATE
Betsy Swan

Why does she think the administration released her text messages?

“You’d have to ask Sarah Flores,” she says. “I can tell you that the reporters there that night were told that they weren’t allowed to source them to the Justice Department, and that they weren’t allowed to copy or remove them, just take notes. That’s what I know.”

Those texts were selected for their political impact. They lack a lot of context. Many of them aren't even about him or me.
Sarah Isgur Flores has left the administration and referred questions to the Justice Department. The department declined to comment.

As Politico noted at the time, “The DOJ decision to release the text messages to the media and lawmakers before the IG report has drawn criticism from outside the department.” Ben Wittes wrote on the Lawfare blog, “Rosenstein here has, at a minimum, contributed to that circus—at the expense of his own employees. In throwing a career FBI agent and career FBI lawyer to the wolves by authorizing the release to the public of their private text messages—without any finding that they had done anything wrong—he once again sent a message to his workforce that he is not the sort of man with whom you want to share your foxhole.”

Page felt abandoned by the FBI and Justice because of the release of the messages and because the bureau issued no statement defending her and Strzok. “So things get worse,” she continues. “And of course, you know, those texts were selected for their political impact. They lack a lot of context. Many of them aren’t even about him or me. We’re not given an opportunity to provide any context. In a lot of those texts we were talking about other people like our family members or articles we had sent each other.”

I ask her what she did next.

“There’s not really anything to do,” she tells me. “I go back to work. I try to keep my life together.” But she didn’t stay. She left the FBI in May 2018 (which is why she says she is now free to talk to the press—she hasn’t worked for the government for 18 months).

 Could she have stayed if she had wanted to? “No, not for much longer. It was very inhospitable.”

Does it feel like a trauma? “It is. I wouldn’t even call it PTSD because it's not over. It’s ongoing. It’s not a historical event that is being relived. It just keeps happening.”

And it’s still going on? “I mean, he tweeted about me four days ago,” she told me on Nov. 18. “When Roger Stone got convicted, he asked, why isn’t Page in jail too? Not to mention, you know, his truly reprehensible, degrading stunt at his rally, in which he used my name to simulate an orgasm. And I don’t ever know when the president’s going to attack next. And when it happens, it can still sort of upend my day. You don’t really get used to it.”

Watching the Justice Dept. Collapse
She’s not on Twitter, or Facebook, or Instagram or anything, so she relies on a group of her close friends—the support system, along with her husband, that has helped her get through the last two years—to be her alert system.

“I’ll get a text from a friend alerting me to an outrageous tweet by the president and my first question is always—is it about me? Often the answer is yes,” she says.

I ask her about how for about a month back when all this started, Trump called her the “lovely” Lisa Page. She postulates that it’s possible after her congressional testimony that he saw a picture of her. Which makes as much sense as anything in Trumpworld. One thing becomes quickly apparent talking to Page; what really upset her, what still devastates her, was not the end of her extremely promising career at the FBI, but instead what Trump has done to the FBI itself.

It’s crushing to see the noble Justice Department, my Justice Department, the place I grew up in, feel like it’s abandoned its principles of truth and independence.
“It’s very painful to see to places like the FBI and the Department of Justice that represent so much of what is excellent about this country, not fulfilling the critical obligation that they have to speak truth to power,” she tells me. “The thing about the FBI that is so extraordinary is that it is made up of a group of men and women whose every instinct is to run toward the fight. It’s in the fiber of everybody there. It’s the lifeblood. So it’s particularly devastating to be betrayed by an organization I still care about so deeply. And it’s crushing to see the noble Justice Department, my Justice Department, the place I grew up in, feel like it’s abandoned its principles of truth and independence.”

Page accepts that her life will never be the same, that there’s no “normal life” to return to. She’s still married to her husband and they have two small children. Ultimately, she was just another public servant like Fiona Hill or Marie Yovanovitch. She was dragged into the spotlight, her text messages weaponized, and her life destroyed so that the Trump administration could have a brief distraction.

The era of Trump populism always had an ugly edge, particularly toward women. Trump revels in bringing misery to his opponents and will always seek out and exploit any weakness. Page “wasn’t nice to him,” and so in his eyes she can be endlessly targeted and assaulted.


It’s tempting to describe this as just part of Trump’s deep, baked-in misogyny and sociopathy, but in Page’s case it’s worse; it’s a sign of how deeply he’s corrupted the government to serve his will and his whims. His apologists have become part of Trump’s own squad of witch-hunters, hunting fantasies like “Ukrainian interference” while attacking the people who tried to protect us from Russian attacks.

It’s not just that Lisa Page may never be safe as long as Trump is President.

It’s that we won’t be safe, either.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Cocktails & Popcorn: Rosenstein v. McCabe - The Battle Of The Wiretap

animation fun GIF by Kiszkiloszki
#maytheheavensfall
McCabe is challenging my Memo Man?

I like to call Rod "Memo Man" because of my memo tremors, but I digress.

Now, whatever shall Rod do considering the fact that he has been busy, busy, busy!

Rod knows stuff.

Matt knows lots of stuff, too.

Perhaps, Rod will #sayhisname.

FISA Wiretaps For Everyone!



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, August 30, 2019

What Do Jim Jordan, Judiciary & Comey Have In Common?


Q: What do Jordan, Judiciary and Jim Comey have in common?

A: They refuse to #sayhisname.

No, Jim.

You and the entire U.S. Congress, Executive and the Judicial Branches owe someone else an apology for stealin' the children, the land and the votes.

#heavensshallfall as soon as someone will #sayhisname


Even Rod Rosenstein chimed in.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rod-rosenstein-shades-comey-rips-msnbc-cnn-pundits

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, June 26, 2019

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 report. In 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.©