Let’s cut to the chase. Mueller, if a truly ethical man should resign. (and he’s a inside DC lawyer…so don’t hold your breath.) Why? Because Comey told us he leaked to the media HIS version of the truth in order to force a special counsel- which happened to turn out to be his buddy Mueller. (By accident I’m sure…hahaha!)
At this point, I want to see the email/phone logs of the acting AG in this matter- Rod Rosenstein! That is how bad it has gotten.
Word is Mueller is hiring to help him “find the truth” former Obama and Clinton supporters. One an actual Clinton Foundation lawyer! How do you think people who believe Trump are going to react to that????
Jeannie Rhee served for two years under Eric Holder.
According to Wilmer Hale, Jeannie Rhee served for two years, up to 2011, as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel for the US Department of Justice, where she advised the Attorney General, the White House and senior agency officials on constitutional, statutory and regulatory issues.
Lifezette has more on Mueller’s partisan picks:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich sparked a mini-meltdown in the media Monday with a tweet challenging the fairness of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
Gingrich, who also appeared on “The Laura Ingraham Show,” pointed to the early hires special counsel Robert Mueller has made.
“Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair,” he tweeted. “Look who he is hiring.check fec [sic] reports. Time to rethink.”
He’s not wrong about the donations. Four top lawyers hired by Mueller have contributed tens of thousands of dollars over the years to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.
One of the hires, Jeannie Rhee, also worked as a lawyer for the Clinton Foundation and helped persuade a federal judge to block a conservative activist’s attempts to force Bill and Hillary Clinton to answer questions under oath about operations of the family-run charity.
Campaign-finance reports show that Rhee gave Clinton the maximum contributions of $2,700 in 2015 and again last year to support her presidential campaign. She also donated $2,300 to Obama in 2008 and $2,500 in 2011. While still at the Justice Department, she gave $250 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp.
Jeannie Rhee set her Twitter settings to private.
They are all in this incestuous soup together and all want Trump gone. We don’t really see this daily, as the media does not cover it. But this is how Washington works. Do you think an impartial outcome will the the result here? Worse, do you think Mueller will close down an investigation that will grow and grow without one scalp? (Think the Plame investigation and the “lying to the FBI” conviction of Scooter Libby.)
Powerlineblog and other have pointed out there are specific laws pertaining to Mueller and Comey, of which they are in violation.
In my post about Robert Mueller’s conflict of interest in investigating “obstruction of justice” claims based on the testimony of his friend James Comey, I ducked the legal question of whether the conflict requires Mueller to withdraw or be removed. My argument was that it provides President Trump with sufficient grounds to remove Mueller if he so chooses.
Let’s now look at legal provisions dealing with conflicts of interest in this context. 28 U.S.C. 528 provides:
The Attorney General shall promulgate rules and regulations which require the disqualification of any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, including a United States attorney or a member of such attorney’s staff, from participation in a particular investigation or prosecution if such participation may result in a personal, financial, or political conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof. Such rules and regulations may provide that a willful violation of any provision thereof shall result in removal from office.
The statute does not address “special counsel.” However, in my view they are brought under its scope by 28 CFR 600.7.
Based on the authority conferred by 28 U.S.C. 528, the Attorney General promulgated 28 CFR 45.2. It provides:
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution.
(b) An employee assigned to or otherwise participating in a criminal investigation or prosecution who believes that his participation may be prohibited by paragraph (a) of this section shall report the matter and all attendant facts and circumstances to his supervisor at the level of section chief or the equivalent or higher. If the supervisor determines that a personal or political relationship exists between the employee and a person or organization described in paragraph (a) of this section, he shall relieve the employee from participation unless he determines further, in writing, after full consideration of all the facts and circumstances, that:
(1) The relationship will not have the effect of rendering the employee’s service less than fully impartial and professional; and
(2) The employee’s participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(1)Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, a candidate (whether or not successful) for elective, public office, a political party, or a campaign organization, arising from service as a principal adviser thereto or a principal official thereof; and
(2)Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. An employee is presumed to have a personal relationship with his father, mother, brother, sister, child and spouse. Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
(d) This section pertains to agency management and is not intended to create rights enforceable by private individuals or organizations.
The threshold question is whether Comey was “substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution” or has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution. Comey’s conduct is not the subject of Mueller’s investigation, in the sense that he isn’t the target of the investigation (though he could be if the investigation spills over into leaking). But Comey’s conduct is a partial subject, in the sense that Mueller will apparently investigate went transpired between Comey and the president — a subject that goes to the heart of any “obstruction” claim.
In any case, it seems to me that Comey has a specific and substantial interest that likely will be affected by the outcome of the investigation. Mueller may well determine whether Trump is lying, as Comey says, or that Comey is lying, as Trump insists. Comey has a specific and substantial interest in not being found to be a liar.
The next question is whether Mueller has a “close and substantial connection” with Comey “of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality?” I think so. As I have argued, they are friends and former colleagues who stood side-by-side in at least one very important legal struggle.
If the requisite personal relationship exists, the question for purposes of removal becomes whether: (1) the relationship will have the effect of rendering Mueller’s service less than fully impartial and professional or (2) Mueller’s participation would create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution.
Whatever one concludes about the first prong of this test, I think it’s plain that Mueller’s participation in the investigation of “obstruction of justice” would “create an appearance of conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation.” If Mueller adopts Comey’s version of the facts, large segments of the population will question whether this is an impartial assessment, given his close relationship with Comey.
That last part is important. Comey has testified already in public that he felt Trump did not cross into obstruction (and legally the President can’t, so there is that). Comey testified- like a scared whiny girl- that he was too weak to resist Trump’s attempt to do nothing illegal. Then testified he thinks Lynch did do something wrong.
I swear to God if Rod Serling came out from stage left, holding a cigarette and revealing we are all in the Twilight Zone I would not be surprised.
So why is a friend of Comey’s handling and investigation of Trump, which has produced no evidence during several other investigations, and the same guy- Mueller- is hiring attorneys who have a vested interest in scoring a revenge win for HRC? Just how screwed up is that? The goal is to cripple and sideline Trump until they can get him out of office. It’s akin to the defensive player aiming at the knees of the other team’s star running back. One good hit and he’s out for the season.
There’s a reason. And here it is. Unelected bureaucrats, who think they are wiser than the rest of the populace, are running things and they do not want to give up the power.
Watching the ongoing clown show in Washington, Americans can be forgiven for asking themselves, “Why did we give this bunch of clowns so very much power over our nation and our lives?”
Well, don’t feel so bad, voters. Because you didn’t actually give them that much power. They just took it. That’s the thesis of Columbia Law Professor Philip Hamburger’s new book, The Administrative Threat, a short, punchy followup to his magisterial Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Both deal with the extraordinary — and illegitimate — power that administrative agencies have assumed in American life.
Hamburger explains that the prerogative powers once exercised by English kings, until they were circumscribed after a resulting civil war, have now been reinvented and lodged in administrative agencies, even though the United States Constitution was drafted specifically to prevent just such abuses. But today, the laws that actually affect people and businesses are seldom written by Congress; instead they are created by administrative agencies through a process of “informal rulemaking,” a process whose chief virtue is that it’s easy for the rulers to engage in, and hard for the ruled to observe or influence. Non-judicial administrative courts decide cases, and impose penalties, without a jury or an actual judge. And the protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (like the requirement for a judge-issued search warrant before a search) are often inapplicable.
As Hamburger writes, “Administrative power also evades many of the Constitution’s procedures, including both its legislative and judicial processes. Administrative power thereby sidesteps most of the Constitution’s procedural freedoms. Administrative power is thus all about the evasion of governance through law, including an evasion of constitutional processes and procedural rights.”
In the early days of the Republic, the franchise was limited. But as the mass of voters became larger, more diverse, and less elite, those who considered themselves the best and brightest looked to transform government into something run not by those deplorable unwashed voters but by a more congenial group. As Hamburger says, “They have gradually moved legislative power out of Congress and into administrative agencies — to be exercised, in more genteel ways, by persons like … themselves.”It has been, in essence, a power grab by what Hamburger calls the “knowledge class,” or what others have called the New Class: A group of managers and intellectuals who, although they may not actually be especially knowledgeable or elite in practice, regard themselves as a knowledge elite.
These “knowledge elites” are the same ones that lost us Vietnam, gave us a failed healthcare system and blew up the Middle East. You would think they would take a pause and reconsider their approach. But no. That’s not how things are done in today’s America. They are working for themselves and the politicians who are smart enough to play along. Remember Chuck Schumer’s warning to Trump, he’d be crazy to take on the bureaucracy, they have a hundred ways to get him. We are seeing just a few.
So, why isn’t Mueller stepping down on his own, now that we all know what he already knew- he cannot be impartial. Because that’s not part of the plan. The plan is to keep digging until they find a weak spot and attack. You can bet old Hillary and Obama lawyers will do just that. But as Powerlineblog points out, that will lead to a civil war because half the nation will know the fix was in all along.
Trump’s presence in DC isn’t causing a blowup, it is the reaction TO his presence that is revealing the true nature of the people there. They are willing to throw off the mantle of respectability and start cheating and lying and abusing right in front of America.
This is a war that they started. It will be revealing and damaging. Americans across the nation voted not just for Trump but for a chance to regain some control over their lives. Those voters are a serious bunch. To spit in their faces, as Washington has done, may not work out they way they think it will. Somebody ought to lend them a copy of the Hunger Games series.