Constitutional Crisis Cometh - Court Of Appeals Orals On Why Don McGahn Does Not Have To Tell House Judiciary About The Detroit Land Bank Authority

See, this just sucks.

All the U.S. House Judiciary Committee had to do was to just put in their filings Don McGahn's role in the Michigan Emergency Manager Law, Detroit Bankruptcy, Detroit Grand Bargain and the Detroit Land Bank Authority, but, alas, they did not, and now there is no de novo review on stealin' the children, land and vote.

These interbranch dispute arguments is dumb.

He is how I would approach this tripartite quagmire:

1. Were you stealin', either, children, land or votes?
2. If you say, 'no', then you are lying based upon multiple attestation in the public record, under arms of the seals of governance.
3. That means you breached your duties as officeholder of the children's trust, which means you can be defrocked, to fall from the heavens, to be held to the laws of the land, in the right of the vote of a grand jury..
4. Ergo, you were lying, and you better not bear false witness in the public record, again, which makes the opportunity of subpoena a right of due process of the public's right to a civil society.

So, instead of listening to the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), I shall provide my summation:

They were stealin'.

What if there is a "Whistleblower, protected by the Orders of Highest Authority", who has everything these people are averring about with Judiciary, already in the public record?

This is fun, because you do not need a subpoena if one is indicted, oops, I mean, arrested, but that is a completely different jurisdiction and we know it is only constitutional for feds to trump States rights...in federal grand juries....ooooohhhh....chaos......baby........mmmmmm.........

Everything you wanted to know about Don McGahn.

This is about the Kavanaugh argument on attorney-client privilege in Whitewater in the Vince Foster case, when a client is deceased, like my Sweetie...

This is about the trafficking of tiny humans, which is why you shall hear the battle of Valhala, which shall allow the heavens to fall.

#maytheheavensfall

LISTEN: Appeals court wrestles with subpoena for ex-White House aide McGahn

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appellate judges are wrestling with whether courts should be refereeing a dispute between the House of Representatives and the Trump administration over the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, even in the face of what one judge called the White House’s “broad-scale defiance of congressional investigation.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments Friday over the House Judiciary Committee’s effort to compel McGahn’s testimony. The administration appealed after a trial judge rejected its broad claim that close advisers to President Donald Trump have complete immunity from congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, pressed tough questions on both sides Friday, describing Trump’s directive not to cooperate with congressional investigations as “broad-scale defiance” that is possibly unprecedented in U.S. history. Even so, Griffith wondered whether courts should get in the middle of a political dispute between the other two branches of government, especially when Congress has other powers available, including cutting off appropriations, stopping the confirmation of judges, even impeachment. “That’s what the separation of powers means,” he said.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by the Republican president during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. But it has held open the possibility that McGahn’s testimony could be important in impeachment, even though the two articles of impeachment adopted last month by the House focus on Ukraine and events that occurred after McGahn left his White House post.

Even if McGahn eventually shows up at the committee, it’s unclear whether he would have much to say. Trump could assert executive privilege over some matters, though he allowed McGahn to talk extensively to Mueller’s investigators.

“What happens then? You’re back here?” Griffith asked.

The other two judges on the panel are Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Rogers seemed likely to side with the House. Henderson had only a few questions, although she indicated McGahn might have a strong interest in saying little to the committee to protect his conversations with Trump, his former client.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn well before the start this fall of an impeachment inquiry centered on Trump’s request to Ukraine’s president that he investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden and Biden’s son as well as an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory alleging Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Justice Department has asked the appeals court to dismiss the case, saying there’s no reason for judges to become involved in a political dispute.

The department also says the need for resolving the case is less urgent now that the House has moved ahead with impeachment articles even without McGahn’s testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Jolly Jerry Gave Don McGahn,"Legal Genius", A Second Chance

Alright, I need someone to work with me, here.

How is it that Trump instructed McGahn to "fire" Mueller when it was Rosenstein who, not only hired the Special Counsel, but was the sole authority to fire the Special Counsel?

I am not finished.

If Rosenstein was the only one with the authority to fire the Special Counsel, Mueller, then how come Trump and Rosenstein were hanging out having fun on Air Force One?

How come Trump put out pressers on how great the relationship was with Rosenstein, with public statements on he was satisfied with the Mueller investigation, long before anything was made public.

So, now, McGahn is in a tough place.

Does he hold to the direction of the president or the subpoena of congress, because we all know he is going to lie.

Don, you are a "Legal Genius" (trademark pending).

I would embed backlinks but if you are not savvy enough to do a term search in my database I have constructed over the last 10 years, or google my name, then you should just keep on parroting the talking points spoon fed to you.

NEW: Chairman @RepJerryNadler response letter to former White House counsel Don McGahn. https://t.co/rw977z0qNw pic.twitter.com/HCL29eahHM

— House Judiciary Dems (@HouseJudiciary) May 21, 2019

FUN FACT! DON MCGAHN USED TO WORK WITH JONES DAY, THE SAME LAW FIRM OVER THE DETROIT BANKRUPTCY AND WAS OVER THE FEC WHERE HE IGNORED COMPLAINTS ON MONEY LAUNDERING THROUGH POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS

ANOTHER FUN FACT! LOTS OF TRUMP'S CANDIDATE COMMITTEES WERE FOREIGN CORPORATIONS

From his Jones Day profile page:

Don McGahn represents clients before government agencies, in enforcement matters, and in court disputes arising from government regulation or action. He handles litigation, crisis management, regulatory compliance, and political issues. Prior to rejoining Jones Day in 2019, Don served as Counsel to the President of the United States, advising Donald J. Trump on all legal issues concerning the President and his administration, including constitutional and statutory authority, executive orders, international agreements, tariffs, trade, administrative law, and national security.  

Don also managed the judicial selection process for the President. During Don's tenure, a historic number of judges were appointed to the federal bench, including two Supreme Court justices. In addition, he spearheaded President Trump's deregulation efforts, which resulted in deregulation at record rates. Following Don's departure from the White House, the President appointed him to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, a nonpartisan, independent agency dedicated to promoting improvement to administrative agency processes. Don's accomplishments have been recognized at the highest levels of government. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that Don concluded his tenure "not only as the best White House Counsel I've seen on the job, but more broadly, as one of the most successful and consequential aides to any President in recent memory." Don was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2008, and confirmed in the Senate by unanimous consent, to serve as a member of the Federal Election Commission. He also served as outside Counsel to the Committee on House Administration during the 113th and 114th Congresses and as general counsel to the National Republican Congressional Committee. 

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Request To Expedite A Hearing Of John McGahn So They Do Not Have To #sayhisname

Did someone say Michigan Emergency Manager, yet?

I was too busy popping popcorn.

I want to be comfy when Kevyn Orr comes crawling from underneath his Jones Day rock for Don McGahn.

#sayhisname

Washington, D.C. – Today, the House Judiciary Committee filed a motion to expedite the ruling in the lawsuit to compel former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the Committee as part of its impeachment investigation into obstruction, corruption and abuse of power by President Donald Trump and his associates.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement:

“As the Committee moves forward with its efforts to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President, we will do everything in our power to hear from those who directly witnessed President Trump’s crimes outlined in Special Counsel Mueller’s report. We have made clear that Don McGahn’s testimony is the most crucial because of his central role in witnessing the President’s multiple acts of obstruction of justice.

“President Trump and the White House have repeatedly blocked witnesses from complying with Committee subpoenas and documents and continue to attempt to stall progress in the courts.  We are aware of this strategy to prevent Congress and the American people from hearing the truth about Trump’s obstruction which is why expediting Mr. McGahn’s testimony is so very important. We look forward to the Judge considering our request.”

• McGahn is the Committee’s most critical witness.
• McGahn’s refusal to testify is depriving the Committee of a witness and information that are essential to its investigation, thereby impeding its ability to exercise its essential Article I functions. That includes the most urgent duty the legislative branch can face: determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment.
• The day before McGahn’s required appearance before this Committee, pursuant to the subpoena at issue in this litigation, the White House purportedly directed McGahn not to appear on the basis of so-called “absolute immunity” from compelled testimony.  Although that claim has no basis in law and has never been accepted by any court, McGahn refused to appear before this Committee as required by his subpoena.

McGahn Motion and Memorandum 8.26.19 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

House Judiciary Original Complaint for Relief in McGahn 8-7-19 by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan Court Of Appeals Hearing On Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer & Her Magical Emergency Manager Powers Argument Simplified By Me

But, wait!

There is a fourth source of power a governor has to effectuate such sweeping powers of an Emergency Manager.

It is called being duly elected.

See, if you claim to be elected, in an election that was so jacked up, that it is still not certified because no one certified the 2018 Special Election.

That would make Gretchen Whitmer illegitimate, which means she does not possess any duly elected powers of goverening, in any shape or form, which means every single little thing she has ever done is retroactively nullified.

And, because everything I just said has been public information in the form of a play by play, real time narrative, Gretch, and her rogue ass crew cannot claim ignorance because I got the data of reading it all.

And, if they do play that, "Duh, I had no idea," crap, you know they are lying because they were stealin' the children, land & vote, where these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending) arguing on behalf of both parties, being the State House of Representatives and the Office of the Governor, should all be defrocked.

The last time I checked, you are supposed to present your instruments of authority to demonstrate your capacity to bring forth a cause of action, in the form of corporate parental rights, in the form of a certified, sealed, oath of office, filed in the Great Repository of the Great Seal of Michigan.

This is called a quo warranto because she has no duly granted authority to be the armiger of the state.

She has no right to keep and bear the arms of the State of Michigan.

Tah dah!

My legal arguments are way more funner than these "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

Hey Boo Boo & Matt,

You may thank me in that constitutional executive orders thing you contemporaneously got going on.

#sealsmatter

#maytheheavensfall 

JonesDay needs to come out and play.....

Where is Don McGahn & Kevyn Orr?

Appeals court rules against Trump, says House can sue to enforce McGahn subpoena

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the House's subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn, ruling that Congress has the right to enforce its subpoenas in court.

The 7-2 decision from the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses an earlier ruling from a divided three-judge panel that declared that congressional subpoenas were essentially unenforceable.

"The Constitution charges Congress with certain responsibilities, including to legislate, to conduct oversight of the federal government, and, when necessary, to impeach and remove a President or other Executive Branch official from office," Judge Judith Rogers wrote in the majority opinion. "Possession of relevant information is an essential precondition to the effective discharge of all of those duties."

Although the ruling is a clear victory for congressional Democrats, it does not mean that McGahn will be sitting for testimony anytime soon. The majority decision did not address the Trump administration's claim that White House officials are immune to congressional subpoena, so even if McGahn does not appeal the ruling, the two sides will still have more to litigate before the D.C. Circuit.

Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Department of Justice, didn't say whether the administration would appeal the ruling.

The circuit court on Friday also ruled that the House has standing to sue Trump over his diversion of Pentagon funds to border wall construction.

“While we strongly disagree with the standing ruling in McGahn, the en banc court properly recognized that we have additional threshold grounds for dismissal of both cases, and we intend to vigorously press those arguments before the panels hearing those cases,” Kupec said in a statement.

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn last year as part of an effort to follow up on the former special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. That investigation eventually morphed into President Trump's impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate.

Trump directed McGahn, his former legal adviser, not to comply with the subpoena, and the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel said the president and his inner circle were immune from congressional subpoenas.

The House sued in federal court to get the subpoena enforced and a district court judge sided against the president in November, ruling that the president and his close advisers have no such immunity from congressional subpoenas.

McGahn, represented by the Department of Justice, appealed the decision and a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the House had no standing to sue.

The House then asked the full D.C. Circuit to rehear the case, arguing that the panel's decision would seriously damage Congress's ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) applauded the ruling, saying that it "strikes a blow against the wall of impunity that President Trump has tried to build for himself."

“Today’s decision is a profound victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system of government," Nadler said in a statement. "The court rejected President Trump’s sweeping claim that Committees of the House have no standing before the courts to seek redress of the institutional injury caused when lawfully issued subpoenas are ignored. Today’s decision confirms the Judiciary’s ability to resolve these disputes."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also praised the ruling, calling it "a victory for the rule of law and Congressional oversight."

"The Court reaffirmed our Constitution’s system of checks and balances and rejected the President’s outrageous claim that Congress cannot enforce its subpoenas," she said. "The House will continue to pursue justice until Don McGahn and all Administration officials comply with our rightfully-issued subpoenas. We remain committed to our oversight responsibilities and to our nation’s fundamental principle that no one is above the law – not even the President.”

The ruling, which can be appealed to the Supreme Court, affirms that Congress has the power to investigate the president and his branch of government and holds that the authority is especially important during impeachment proceedings.

"To level the grave accusation that a President may have committed 'Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' the House must be appropriately informed," Rogers, who was appointed to the appeals court by former President Clinton, wrote in the opinion. "And it cannot fully inform itself without the power to compel the testimony of those who possess relevant or necessary information."

All seven of the judges in the majority were appointed by Democratic presidents, and both dissenters were appointed by Republicans. Two judges, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were appointed by Trump and worked in his White House, recused themselves from the case.

The two judges who dissented — Thomas Griffith and Karen Henderson, both appointed by former President George H.W. Bush — argued in separate opinions that the courts should not be mediating disputes between Congress and the president.

"The majority’s decision will compel us to referee an interminable series of interbranch disputes, politicizing the Judiciary by repeatedly forcing us to take sides between the branches," Griffith wrote. "I cannot join the court’s expedition into an area where we do not belong and can do no good."

While Friday's ruling comes months after the conclusion of the impeachment process, it's a blow to the Trump administration, which has repeatedly argued in an unprecedented number of court battles between the two branches that Congress is limited in the ways it can fight back against the president.

The administration has had a mixed record in its legal battles against efforts to investigate the president. In a 7-2 ruling last month, the Supreme Court rejected Trump's argument that he has absolute immunity concerning a grand jury subpoena for his tax returns issued by the district attorney in Manhattan.

But the same 7-2 majority also dealt a setback to congressional subpoenas for Trump's financial records, ruling that the courts must carefully balance the interests of the two branches when faced with such disputes.

Though the high court ruled on the legal merits of those congressional subpoenas, it has yet to consider whether Congress actually has standing to enforce its investigative demands in the courts.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

JUDICIARY: Hearing With Former Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III - Don McGahn Sucks - No One Will #sayhisname

Impeach, so we can meet the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending).

We can start wuth Don McGahn.

This looks so much like a CPS child abuse and neglect proceeding, where one is guilty until proven innocent through ex-parte proceedings of, not allowed to challenge one's accuser who is through anonymous sources, where fraudulent documents are generated to be recorded into the public record for grounds to terminate the gift of the grant to hold of custodianship and guardianship of the parental right to the trust of the child.

In this instance, McGahn lied his ass off to terminate the right to hold the Office of the President, but it comes off as Trump being the culprit.

Can you say Detroit?

I can, but no one will #sayhisname in this hearing.

In essence, an impeachment hearing is like a Termination of Parental Rights hearing, except there is due process.

Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer at the center of the “Trump Tower Meeting,” got much of her information from Fusion GPS and Glenn Simpson, the same company that put together the phony Trump Dossier. #MuellerHearings pic.twitter.com/Qx6GDgw94i

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) July 24, 2019

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

McQuade Announces The League Of Old School Civil Rights Legal Dogs

"How did I win the 2016 election? What if there
is election interference in 2018 or 2020?"
"Worry ye not, for we are here to whisper in your ears."
Trump being advised by his top advisor, Mephistopheles.
 2016 to present 

Former Federal Prosecutors can be whistleblowers, too, you know.

This is about false advisement by the nefarious ones by whispering into the ears of the king.

That is how attorney-client privilege immunities are stripped.

Trump is not an attorney but Barb and her League of Old School Civil Rights Legal Dogs are.

#sayhisname

McQuade: Trump committed obstruction of justice

Former Detroit U.S. Attorney Barb McQuade signed onto a statement Monday with hundreds of other former federal prosecutors saying President Donald Trump would be charged with crimes for obstruction of justice were he not in the White House.

"I see Watergate 'Legal Geniuses' (trademark pending)"
Barbara McQuade - MIED

McQuade said on Twitter that she endorsed the document "to make clear what (Special Counsel Robert) Mueller’s nuance may have obscured: Trump’s conduct violated the obstruction of justice statute, and he would be charged with crimes if he were not president."

McQuade, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, served as the top federal prosecutor for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to March 2017, stepping down after Trump took office.

She co-chaired the Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee from 2010-17.

Now a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law, McQuade has opined extensively on the Mueller investigation and report. 

I signed this statement with hundreds of other former federal prosecutors to make clear what Mueller’s nuance may have obscured: Trump’s conduct violated the obstruction of justice statute, and he would be charged with crimes if he were not president. https://t.co/FOXvJsrngG

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) May 6, 2019

The letter, published on the website Medium, had been signed by more than 390 former federal prosecutors from both Republican and Democratic administrations, as of Monday afternoon. They described themselves as former "line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys and senior officials at the Department of Justice."

Trump has incorrectly said the Mueller report "exonerated" him. The group of former prosecutors painted a different picture.

"Despite the tremendous success that I have had as President, including perhaps the greatest ECONOMY and most successful first two years of any President in history, they have stolen two years of my (our) Presidency (Collusion Delusion) that we will never be able to get back," Trump tweeted Sunday.

"Also, there are 'No High Crimes & Misdemeanors,' No Collusion, No Conspiracy, No Obstruction. ALL THE CRIMES ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE, and that’s what the Dems should be looking at, but they won’t. Nevertheless, the tables are turning!"

In the statement, the prosecutors said the details included in Mueller’s report would, "in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting president, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice."

They specifically cite Trump's alleged efforts to fire Mueller via former White House counsel Donald McGahn and then to "falsify evidence about that effort."

"Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates  —  obstruction in its most literal sense," they wrote.

"Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful."

The prosecutors also point to Trump's efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct and to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

"All of this conduct  —  trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others  —  is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions," the prosecutors wrote.

McQuade, who oversaw public corruption cases while in office, has also questioned Attorney General Bill Barr's decision to conclude that Trump hadn't violated any laws after Mueller found it inappropriate to say whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

"Barr has said that were no instances in which he overruled the special counsel. In fact, he overruled Mueller’s finding of obstruction," she tweeted last week.

"He should just say so instead of using letters, press conference and testimony to mislead the public." 

McQuade has also criticized Trump for downplaying Russian interference in the 2016 election, saying "Trump’s failure to protect our country from future attacks is his biggest betrayal."

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system: as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

· The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence about that effort;
· The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation to exclude his conduct; and
· The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn did not pass along Trump’s message.

As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials and people in powerful positions.

Witness tampering and intimidation

The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment. Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here. In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic and our experience.

https://protectdemocracy.org/

As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to add your name below, click here.

Protect Democracy will update this list daily with new signatories.

Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability.

Here is another list of "well-armed" militia with institutional brigades.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Don McGahn Was Mean To Trump, Again, But Barb McQuade Remedied With Citation

Well, now.

It seems Don McGahn is back to his old tricks again, but Barb McQuade was swift to correct, with supportive citation, mind you.

Nope. Justice Manual says “inappropriate” to charge 641 when:(1) subject is intangible property, i.e., government information; (2) purpose is public dissemination; and (3) property was not obtained by wiretapping, interception of correspondence, criminal entry or trespass. https://t.co/35VuXYLG5V

— Barb McQuade (@BarbMcQuade) August 31, 2019

I think it is time to help Jolly Judiciary Jerry Nadler with his quest for impeachment hearings so we can find out why Donnie likes to lie to Trump all the time.

It is not nice to falsely advise a sitting POTUS.

In fact, it is treasonous, because he did it to cover up stealin' the children, the land and the votes.

All Hail The FBI Whistleblowers!!!!

1664. PROTECTION OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY -- THEFT OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

Section 641 of Title 18 prohibits theft or receipt of stolen government information as well as theft of the documents, computer discs, etc., that contain the information. United States v. Fowler, 932 F.2d 306, 309-10 (4th Cir. 1991); United States v. Girard, 601 F.2d 69, 70-71 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 871 (1979); United States v. DiGilio 538 F.2d 972, 977-78 (3rd Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Lupo v. United States, 429 U.S. 1038 (1977). But see United States v. Tobias, 836 F.2d 449, 451 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 991 (1988). Nevertheless, for the reasons set forth below, the Criminal Division believes that it is inappropriate to bring a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 641 when: (1) the subject of the theft is intangible property, i.e., government information owned by, or under the care, custody, or control of the United States; (2) the defendant obtained or used the property primarily for the purpose of disseminating it to the public; and (3) the property was not obtained as a result of wiretapping, (18 U.S.C. § 2511) interception of correspondence (18 U.S.C. §§ 1702, 1708), criminal entry, or criminal or civil trespass.

There are two reasons for the policy. First, it protects "whistle-blowers." Thus, under this policy, a government employee who, for the primary purpose of public exposure of the material, reveals a government document to which he or she gained access lawfully or by non-trespassory means would not be subject to criminal prosecution for the theft. Second, the policy is designed to protect members of the press from the threat of being prosecuted for theft or receipt of stolen property when, motivated primarily by the interest in public dissemination thereof, they publish information owned by or under the custody of the government after they obtained such information by other than trespassory means.

The Criminal Division does not intend, in promulgating this policy, to prevent or discourage prosecutions under any other applicable statutes, such as those prohibiting the unauthorized dissemination or possession of government information, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 794, 1905, or 50 U.S.C. §  783. Instead, the Division's purpose is to require that, in the circumstances enumerated above, such cases are prosecuted under these other applicable statutes rather than under 18 U.S.C. § 641.

The adoption of this policy does not alter the responsibility of government employees to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive government information disclosed to them in the course of their employment.

[cited in JM 9-66.400]

Report of Investigation of Former FederalBureau of Investigation Director JamesComey's Disclosure of Sensitive InvestigativeInformation and Handling of CertainMemoranda 

FBI Whistleblower Protectio... by Beverly Tran on Scribd

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tales Of The New Crown: Toronto Fires Its Emergency Manager - Michigan Did Not Take Notes

How is it the City of Toronto established an administrative structure to be able to remove an Emergency Manager?

Detroit, Flint, Hamtramck and Benton Harbor could not fire their Emergency Managers, but then again, we would have to ask Don McGahn about how the Michigan Emergency Law came into existence, since no one wants to recognize his dedicated passion in the identification of the need for Detroit to file bankruptcy, in the first place.

We can not ask Travis Weber about Don McGahn's work at JonesDay with Kevyn Orr or Bill Schuette, but we could ask Richard Baird because Travis is no longer viable to give testimony.

Michigan should take notes.

City of Toronto fires director of Office of Emergency Management in middle of COVID-19 crisis

The decision to replace the top emergency boss just as Ontario declares a state of emergency will be cause for public concern

The City of Toronto has abruptly fired the director of its Office of Emergency Management, Charles Jansen.

Jansen said he was relieved of his duties on Wednesday by a deputy city manager and human resources official, who told him the city is taking the office in “a different direction” and that they were worried Jansen “might not be the right fit.”

The decision to replace Toronto’s top emergency official just as Ontario declares a state of emergency because of a major pandemic will be cause for public concern.

“I’m devastated,” Jansen said in an interview. “It was, for me, what I thought was the perfect calling.”

Jansen said no conflict had occurred, other than perhaps in terms of strategic vision, because he is a lifelong military man among city bureaucrats.

The dismissal is within a six-month probationary period that started when Jansen was hired in October, he said.

“I’m still debating about whether I believe the terms are fair or not,” he said.

He described guiding the city’s concepts and specific plans for emergency management, said he enjoyed the work, and believed it had been going well before the pandemic began. One of his first major incidents to manage was a high-rise fire that displaced residents last November.

Jansen was until last year director of 4th Canadian Division Headquarters in Toronto, after serving in finance and operations roles in the Canadian Armed Forces. He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2007 to 2009 in a logistical role.

The City of Toronto said it does not discuss personnel matters, and said the Office of Emergency Management has been led since the onset of COVID-19 by Fire Chief Matthew Pegg.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Cocktails & Popcorn: Judiciary Jolly Jerry Nadler & Nancy Pelosi Do Not Want To #sayhisname - The Road To Impeachment

On this exciting episode of Cocktails & Popcorn, Judiciary Jolly Jerry and Nancy Pelosi do not want to #sayhisname.

Perhaps, Trump can assist in the healing of the DNC if he would stop obstructing justice and pull that IG Report from his backpocket.

Pelosi-Nadler clash over impeachment intensifies

Jolly Jerry & Nancy do not want to #sayhisname.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, two longtime allies, are clashing over whether to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump – a sign of how toxic the split over Trump has become for House Democrats.

Nadler has twice urged Pelosi in private to open a formal impeachment inquiry, but the speaker, backed by the majority of her leadership team and her caucus, has maintained that impeaching the president would backfire on Democrats without meaningful Republican support. And there is no sign that Trump’s GOP firewall is cracking.

Story Continued Below

Pelosi and Nadler, two veterans of the impeachment drama surrounding President Bill Clinton 20 years ago, appear to be drawing opposite lessons from that experience. And the divide between the two lawmakers is illustrative of what all Democrats are grappling with as they respond to Trump’s efforts to stonewall congressional investigations into his personal conduct, finances and policy moves.

“I think they are articulating the different impulses within the caucus, and also within each of us,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said of Pelosi and Nadler. “It’s not entirely clear what to do.”

“Put yourself in the position of somebody in the House of Representatives today,” added Raskin, a Judiciary Committee member who wants to launch an impeachment inquiry. “There are a million factors to deal with. And we’re dealing with the most lawless, corrupt presidency of our lifetime. So what is the right time to respond? It’s not entirely clear.”

Tuesday, though, will feature a key step that all Democrats can agree on: The full House will vote on empowering committee chairs to enforce subpoenas issued to top current and former Trump administration officials, including Attorney General William Barr and former White House counsel Don McGahn.

The resolution will, in part, allow the Judiciary Committee to sue Barr and McGahn in federal court to secure former special counsel Robert Mueller’s unredacted report and underlying evidence from his Russia investigation, as well as McGahn’s public testimony.

But a majority of Democratic members of Nadler’s committee favor impeaching Trump, which puts intense pressure on the chairman for more drastic action.

Pelosi and other top Democrats argue that most in their party don’t support such a move, especially with no significant GOP support. Even if the Democratic-controlled House voted to impeach Trump, the Republican-run Senate would probably acquit him, they argue, meaning that Trump would not only remain in office but that the move could potentially embolden the GOP base and result in the president’s reelection.

Nadler, meanwhile, has made the case to Pelosi that an impeachment inquiry would streamline their investigations under one committee and would strengthen Democrats’ hand in federal court over challenges to their subpoenas.

Nadler and Pelosi sparred over the issue during a private meeting last week. Nadler again pushed the speaker to support an impeachment inquiry, but she refused, saying she’d rather see Trump “in prison.”

Some Judiciary Committee members are hinting at a more serious divide between the two lawmakers. But senior Democratic aides consistently downplay any tension between them.

“I think Chairman Nadler has done a very good job, particularly considering the parameters under which he has to work,” said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), one of the caucus’s most fervent supporters of impeachment. “There are quite a few.”

Tuesday’s vote – the first enforcement mechanism to hit the House floor since Mueller’s report was released nearly two months ago – is unlikely to calm tensions, even as House Democrats continue to secure key victories in federal court and in their negotiations with the Justice Department over access to Mueller’s files.

That’s in part because Pelosi’s allies are using those wins as evidence that their current strategy is working – and that impeachment isn’t necessary yet.

“We’re winning as it relates to the strategy that we’re pursuing, and the fact that the Department of Justice has agreed to provide documents and allow inspection of a more unredacted version of the report means we should stay the course,” said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a member of the Judiciary panel. He was referring to a the committee struck with the Justice Department over access to some of Mueller’s “key” underlying evidence about possible obstruction of justice by the president.

At the core of the conflict is a sharp disagreement between Pelosi and Nadler over the intensity and speed with which Democrats investigate Trump and how that decision will reverberate in next year’s election.

Pelosi speaks frequently about how she empowers her committee chairmen – allowing them to make decisions about what legislation they pursue and how they run their respective panels.

With Nadler’s panel, however, she has been much more personally involved in the committee’s decision-making process, according to multiple sources, even compared with panels such as Oversight and Intelligence, which are also pursuing potentially explosive investigations targeting Trump.

The speaker’s allies, though, assert that Pelosi has been hands-off with the Judiciary Committee except when it comes to her disagreement with Nadler over impeachment. Opening an impeachment inquiry, as Nadler has advocated privately to Pelosi, would be the equivalent of “jumping off a cliff,” according to a source close to the speaker.

The squabble has put a strain on what has generally been a cordial and respectful relationship.

They have served together in the House for nearly 30 years. Nadler, a New Yorker, backed Pelosi, who is from California, when she challenged Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), now the No. 2 Democrat, in their bitter battle to become House minority whip in 2001, a critical moment in her rise to the speaker’s chair. The alliances forged then still resonate today and creep into nearly all internal caucus politics.

Pelosi, in turn, stayed out of the race between Nadler and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a close ally of the speaker, to become the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee in 2017. Pelosi’s silence was interpreted as a gift to Nadler and a blessing for him to take over the gavel after the resignation of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) amid a sexual harassment scandal.

In the seven weeks since Mueller’s findings were made public, House Democrats have been focused almost exclusively on battling the Trump administration over how much of the Mueller report lawmakers can view; when and whether Mueller testifies; the conditions of Barr’s testimony; and other process-related fights.



Those protracted legal battles were out of Nadler’s control, due in large part to the Trump administration’s unwillingness to comply with congressional subpoenas. Nadler addressed the administration’s recalcitrance during Monday’s hearing with Nixon White House counsel John Dean and former federal prosecutors.

“It is true that fact witnesses have been ordered by the White House not to appear before this committee,” Nadler said. “But we’ll get them.”

Still, Democrats on the committee have privately complained that the process battles do little to educate the public, and even Monday’s hearing with Dean barely made a splash. Instead, most news networks carried coverage of a fatal helicopter crash in New York City on Monday.

“Obviously that’s not going to be effective if they didn’t see that,” acknowledged Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee and leadership member who supports opening an impeachment inquiry.

“I’ve expressed my personal opinions to the speaker,” Lieu said. “It will be a decision that the speaker and the caucus makes. And I respect that decision. In the meantime, I’m going to hold these hearings [and] educate the American people about the report.”

Judiciary Committee Democrats largely remain united behind Nadler, saying privately that they recognize he is in an impossible position – caught between a majority of the panel’s Democratic members supporting an impeachment inquiry and the speaker remaining steadfastly opposed.

“To some extent they’re on the same page,” Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), a Judiciary member and Pelosi ally, said of the disagreement between the speaker and Nadler. “But the American people have to get there. And as of now, as Democrats, the White House has been able to distract and hide from the Mueller report because we have a president and an attorney general who are co-conspirators in depriving the American people of the real facts.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

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

McQuade is a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst.

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.©