Democrat Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders and Wife Jane Sanders Lawyer Up After Under FBI Investigation for Bank Fraud

HAH, NOW BOTH 2016 DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE HAVE BEEN UNDER FBI INVESTIGATION …

According to CBS News, self-proclaims socialist and 2016 Democrat presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president.  Hmm, wonder why the liberal MSM is not making this their headline story? Instead its Russia-Trump 24/7.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders’ top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents’ allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People’s United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders’ office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby “Scooter” Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.

Ms. Sanders’ push for the liberal arts college’s costly land acquisition was cited in a press release by the college when it shut down in 2016.

Great point and some poetic justice from Twitchy: Now here’s the best part. It seems that President Donald Trump will be instrumental in deciding the Sanders’ fate.

Senate Judiciary Committee Opens Probe into Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s Efforts to Shape the FBI’s Investigation With 2016 Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign

IF THERE EVER WAS COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN OBAMA’S FORMER AG, LORETTA LYNCH.

During the Senate Judiciary Committee with former FBI director James Comey we learned there was actual collusion and obstruction of justice; however, it has nothing to do with the Trump administration, it was with the Obama one. On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders said they are seeking information about former attorney general Loretta Lynch’s alleged efforts to stifle the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Clinton was secretary of State. Yeah, that little investigation that Lynch wanted FBI Director Comey to call a matter.  Comey testified, “When I said, we have opened a matter, they all reported the FBI has an investigation open. And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about FBI’s work and that’s concerning.” However, in the end Comey had no problem doing what she said. Hmm, no notes taken and no obstruction of justice decided by Comey. Imagine that?

Following this amazing admission under oath by the former FBI director, even Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that there should be an investigation into former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions

Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.

In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”

Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.

Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.

We need a Robert Mueller Resignation or a Second Special Counsel

MUELLER MUST RESIGN …

In an OPED by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, he opines that the only way to avoid a tainted investigation or a political explosion is another counsel to investigate possible obstruction of justice. This is clearly the case. Mueller has an obvious conflict of interest as we has previously discussed, isn’t and independent counsel supposed to be independent? As Reynold’s states, either Robert Mueller does the right thing and resigns or Attorney General Jeff Sessions should appoint another special counsel to take over the obstruction-of-justice part of the investigation, where Mueller is disqualified. That would make sense. How could such a high profile investigation have any look of impropriety? Otherwise, it does just become a partisan witch hunt.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has a problem: He has a disqualifying conflict of interest regarding a large part of his work. It involves a choice between investigating or relying on former FBI director James Comey, a longtime close friend of Mueller’s.

Ideally, he’ll recognize that and resign. But if he doesn’t resign, Attorney General Jeff Sessions should appoint another special counsel to take over the obstruction-of-justice part of the investigation, where Mueller is disqualified.

At present, there are two investigations: One into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians (a claim that even Democrat Chris Matthews admitted fell apart after Comey’s recent testimony) and an investigation into whether, while being investigated for this claimed collusion, President Trump or someone else obstructed justice. That investigation is closely tied to Comey, and so is Mueller.

As Bill Otis wrote in these pages last week, Mueller is too close to Comey to be impartial, and that violates Justice Department conflict of interest rules.  As Otis noted, “Comey and Mueller have been friends for nearly 15 years. They were partners in the episode that defined Comey’s professional persona more than any other in his public service. It would be surprising if it had not also forged a permanent bond with Mueller … Comey now finds himself at the center of the Russian investigation over which Mueller presides. Questions swirl around Comey — about whether the president wanted/hinted/hoped/asked/directed/or something else the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn to be stopped/abandoned/slowed/soft-peddled/something else. This is probably the central element of the obstruction of justice case that Trump’s opponents would like to see made against him. Questions also swirl about Comey’s notes about this conversation and why he gave them to a private individual (professor Dan Richman of Columbia Law) to convey to journalists. Additional questions have arisen about whether this curious and seemingly devious means of putting the contents of the notes in the public domain (leaking, in other words) was designed specifically to bring about the appointment of a special counsel outside the president’s direct reach — and, indeed, whether Comey wanted, expected or intended his friend Mueller to get the job.”

How is Robert Mueller Allowed to Be Independent Special Counsel When Special Counsel Statute Specifically Prohibits It Because of Conflict of Interest (VIDEO)

ISN’T THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT?

What would the LEFT be saying today if the individual picked to be the Independent counsel investigating the Russian hacking and any so-called involvement of Donald Trump and obstruction of justice was a friend and mentor of Trump? This is a legitimate question. According to the special counsel statute, it specifically prohibits individuals from serving if he/she has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”  The language is mandatory as it states “shall” disqualify himself. It does not say, might, kinda or sort of. Shall means shall. Gregg Jarrett of Fox News is 100% correct in that  Robert Mueller has no business being the independent counsel. Mueller has a complete conflict of interest. The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. One has to wonder how Mueller was selected in the first place. Unless the fix is in.

28 CFR Section 45.2 provides in part:

Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(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 …
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. … Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons (outside his or her family) or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.

It does not matter whether Robert Mueller is an honorable man or a Boy Scout. Provisions like this are put in to maintain that there is no appearance of impropriety. It takes the subjectivity out of such an investigation. Honestly, who thinks some one can be objective to the man that fired his friend? If Robert Mueller was truly a man of honor as so many claim, he would understand and admit he is woefully conflicted and recuse himself. The canons of ethics and the law are greater than any one person and the blood lust to destroy them. Or are they?

The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.

If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel.  He has an egregious conflict of interest.

The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.”  The language is mandatory.  He “shall” disqualify himself.  Comey is substantially involved in the case.  Indeed, he is the central witness.

The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners.  Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI.  They have a mentor-protégé relationship.  The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.

So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend.  Mueller cannot possibly be fair in judging the credibility of his friend versus the man who fired him.

Is the special counsel now motivated to retaliate against the president for ending Comey’s career at the FBI?  Will he be tempted to conjure criminality where none actually exist?

Even worse, are Mueller and Comey now “colluding” by acting as co-special prosecutors to bring down the president?  By meeting in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, did they plan Comey’s testimony to depict Trump in the most incriminating light?  These are legitimate questions that invite serious concerns.

UPDATE I: USA Today – Robert Mueller should recuse himself from Russia investigation: William G. Otis is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a former federal prosecutor, and former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush.

Former FBI director is too close to his successor, James Comey, to be impartial.

Robert Mueller is a man of integrity with a long record of public service. In the abstract, he would be the right selection as special counsel in the Russia investigation. Under the specific circumstances of this case, however, with his longtime friend James Comey at the center of the inquiry, Mueller’s the wrong choice. The public cannot be as sure as it needs to be of his objectivity.

This is true for reasons similar to those that prompted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the same investigation. Sessions testified Tuesday that he felt he had no proper choice because he had a potential political conflict of interest, having been a campaign adviser to President Trump. Mueller should likewise step away because he has a potential personal conflict of interest, having been a longtime friend of a crucial witness, Comey, and Comey’s key ally at the most important moment of his career.

UPDATE II: Fmr. FBI Agent: Mueller Should Step Down Over Comey Conflict.

Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey are best buds. Family vacations, picnics, hours spent at the office, and a few cocktails after work. As an impartial arbiter Mueller will be tasked to determine whom he believes, but Muelller is predisposed to believe his friend Comey. Wouldn’t you? The elements of obstruction of justice can be highly interpretive, so expect some legal exposure for our president.

Comey stated that he “leaked” the Trump meeting memo to The New York Times to stimulate the appointment of a special counsel. That admission is enlightening. As the Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey had the authority, stature and responsibility to deal with a violation of law. What he appeared to lack is courage or conviction.

The fact that Comey leaked the memo places him in some legal jeopardy. He could be charged with two federal violations. Should we expect to place Mueller into the position to investigate his dear friend? Even if Mueller believes himself capable of being impartial, our hearts will usually override our minds.

Why Mueller should step down as special counsel or recuse himself from any aspect of the investigation involving Comey:

Sean Hannity 6/12/2017, Witch Hunt Against President Trump, Conflict of Interest ….

CONFLICT OF INTEREST, COLLUSION AND CORRUPTION, OH MY!!!

Isn’t and independent investigation supposed to be independent of conflicts of interest, impartial and fair?