White House lawyer writes scathing letter to DOJ – ‘A Law School Exam Paper’

 

The letter submitted by a Emmet Flood, Trump’s WH Attorney to the DOJ is well worth the read. Anyone who has been waiting for the screw to turn the opposite direction will find some comfort that the adults are now in control of salvaging the defense of Trump.

There is no question that Trump’s first legal team took a naive approach with Mueller. In fact they allowed Mueller unfettered access to his Chief of Staff and Legal Consul when Trump could easily have claimed Executive privilege for these two without much blow back and is causing most of the ruckus at this moment with statements they made to Mueller’s team.

See my earlier post Trump’s legal team’s epic fail – meet John Dowd

September 7, 2018.

We had the good fortune of hearing the setup this past week when Hannity dragged John Dowd out from under a rock to explain his thinking. Dowd thought he could trust Mueller and had a handshake on it? He’s disappointed?

I can’t say he is in much better shape with media hog Rudy, who never let a minute go without being noticed.

John Dowd, who has urged the President to cooperate with special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe and resist attacking him publicly, resigned as his disagreements with Trump intensified and the President stepped up his attacks on the special counsel. His departure raises questions about the direction of Trump’s legal strategy and could signal a more aggressive posture on Trump’s part. (You think??) H/t: CNN

 

 

Now the update with WH Emmet Flood’s letter to the DOJ. Do take the time to read the excellent writing by Flood. Link embedded below:

In a five-page letter, a top White House lawyer argued that Trump should be able to stop officials from talking to Congress about the report.

A top White House lawyer slammed Robert Mueller in a letter made public Thursday, calling out the special counsel for playing politics by submitting findings to Attorney General William Barr that are “part ‘truth commission’ report and part law school exam paper.”

Emmet Flood’s blistering rebuke of Mueller’s work came in a five-page letter to Barr dated April 19, one day after the public release of a redacted version of the special counsel’s report that detailed President Donald Trump’s efforts to interfere in the Russia probe but declined to make a determination on whether Trump obstructed justice.

The missive is the latest salvo in a long-running spat between the White House and the special counsel’s office over what information Mueller’s team should be allowed to release — and what Congress should see. It argues that Trump should be able to stop officials from talking to lawmakers about the report’s findings and attempts to justify the White House refusal to comply with congressional subpoenas seeking further information about instances described in the report.

Read more

Peter Strzok is Facing Serious Charges

 

Strzok Facing Serious Charges

by Mustang

Peter Strzok

At least, this is what Sara Carter is telling us on her news blog. Under the microscope is Strzok’s behavior in the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send classified e-mails and the counter-intelligence investigation into President Trump’s political campaign.

Apparently, this new concern comes from an investigation by DOJ Inspector general Michael Horowitz, which alleges malfeasance by FBI and DOJ officials who were involved in the Russia-Russia-Russia probe. When will we know for sure? Maybe by the last of June. The wheels of justice are slow (and hopefully, deliberately thorough).

I’m not holding my breath. An investigation is generally started whenever there is probable cause to open one—but “probable cause” is an extremely low bar. Here is the legal definition and explanation:

Probable Cause are facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused or suspected person has committed a crime and that such facts suggest that the accused warrants further investigation or prosecution.

Reasonable belief must be based on easily articulated and sufficiently available facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the accusations or chargers are true. In criminal law, probable cause is used as a basis for searching and seizing evidence of wrongdoing and the arrest of persons and depriving them of their civil liberty. In the absence of probable cause, then any seizure of material or arrest of persons may later be regarded as malicious prosecution.

So according to Carter, the current inquiry goes to the issue of what Strzok knew and how he knew it. If the basis for opening a criminal or counter-intelligence investigation was the Steele Dossier, and if Strzok knew that the dossier was manufactured by the Clinton Campaign, and knowing this, proceeded anyway, then I would say that Strzok could be in trouble. According to Carter’s source:

“There are a number of individuals who are looking at Peter Strzok’s actions and inactions and how those actions affected both of the investigations he was involved in,” said a U.S. official, with knowledge. “Further evaluation of what Peter Strzok did or did not do needs to be evaluated thoroughly.”

I remain skeptical. We have now witnessed several years of investigations by congressional committees. These are political, not criminal inquiries. I’m not sure “we the people” benefit from this overload of information. Nevertheless, as I previously said, the wheels of justice are slow. Thanks to the Democratic Party, the RINO-wing of the GOP, and operatives like George Soros, most Americans no longer have confidence in our most important institutions.

It is heartening to see that finally, there are demonstrations that America’s laws do apply to everyone. Attorney General William Barr is a careful and deliberate man and I do have confidence that he will make an in-depth inquiry into US spying against an American presidential candidate. Still, even with that said, Hillary Clinton has not been fitted for an orange jumpsuit and she, after all, was behind this entire affair.

In this sense, Strzok was a useful idiot and more than likely, “small potatoes” in the overall scheme of things. If he did bad things for political purposes, then he must answer for it. My problem is one of confidence. Whatever does happen to Strzok may very well depend on whether he ends up standing before an impartial judge, or another Obama hack.

 

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

Thanks to WhatFingerNews for the coverage! A great site for all the news.

%d bloggers like this: