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.
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:
SESSIONS EXPOSES THE ABSURDITY OF SENATE RUSSIAN PROBE …
Charles Krauthammer is hardly pro-Trump, yet even he stated that Attorney General Jeff Session’s testimony yesterday exposed the absurdity of the Russian probe. Just curious, where was the discussion on the Russian interference? Krauthammer stated this is a case of all smoke and no fire. Krauthammer went on to say that it was becoming Un-American to try and destroy the Trump presidency just because you do not like him and bases on no evidence and no crimes.
THE WITCH HUNT CONTINUES …
Despite no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia during the 2016 presidential election, the witch hunt continues. Thus, there has been no evidence after months and months and months of investigations, this charade continues. This has nothing to do with finding out the truth, its a political war against President Trump.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Says on CNN’s State of the Union … Calls for Investigation into Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions After Comey Testimony in Regards to the Clinton Email Scandal
Via RedState, in a interview on CNN’s ‘State of the Union’ Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that there should be an investigation into former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions that came out during former FBI directors testimony last Thursday to the Senate. Comey testified that Lynch improperly injected politics into the investigation. Comey was told to call the FBI criminal investigation a matter. However, in that case, Comey had no issue doing exactly what the AG told him to do and provided cover for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Although now he claims it gave him a queasy feeling.
It’s not every day the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee says a political appointee of the same party needs to be investigated. But that’s exactly what Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) said on Sunday’s State of the Union on CNN of former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions in regards to the Clinton email scandal.
“I think we need to know more about that,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) on Sunday’s episode of State of the Union. “And there’s only one way to know about it, and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”
Feinstein’s comment comes in the wake of fired F.B.I. Director James Comey’s testimony last week in which he claimed Lynch — who herself created a firestorm when she made a visit to allegedly chitchat with Bill Clinton on the tarmac during the 2016 campaign — told him to call the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of email as Secretary of State a “matter” rather than an “investigation.”
Posted June 12, 2017 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Democrats, Department of Justice (DOJ), Diane Feinstein (CA-D), DOJ - Dept of Justice, Double Standard, Email-Gate, FBI, Hillary Clinton, Liberals, Obamanation, Progressives, Scandal, Senate, WTF, You Got Email-gate, You Tube - VIDEO | no comments
James Comey Testifies that Obama AG Loretta Lynch Ordered Him to Downplay Hillary Clinton’s ‘Criminal Investigation’ and Call it a “MATTER” (VIDEO)
HOW IS THIS NOT OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? BECAUSE IT WAS ASKED FOR BY AN OBAMA OFFICIAL FOR HILLARY CLINTON … CALL IT A MATTER.
UNREAL!!! We learned during yesterday’s testimony from former FBI Director James Comey that, not only were the news media stories regarding Russia and President Donald Trump false, but also that former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered him to downplay the Hillary Clinton FBI criminal investigation, and “call it a matter.” Lynch did not hope he would do this, she ordered him to do so.
James Comey appeared to work for the Federal Bureau of Matters. However, when Comey was given this directive, that was completely inappropriate, a conflict of interest and yes, a form of obstruction of justice, he only felt queasy. REALLY? In essence, he was running cover for Hillary’s campaign so that she could say, she was not under criminal investigation. But of course Comey is not partisan.
LANKFORD: OK. OK. You had mentioned before about some news stories and news accounts, but, without having to go into all the names and the specific times and to be able dip into all that, have there been news accounts about the Russia investigation, about collusion, about this whole event or accusations that, as you read the story, you were stunned about how wrong they got the facts
COMEY: Yes. There have been many, many stories purportedly based on classified information about — well, about lots of stuff, but especially about Russia, that are just dead wrong.
LANKFORD: I was interested in your comment that you made, as well, that the president said to you, if there were some satellite associates of his that did something wrong, it would be good to find that out.
That — the president seemed to talk to you specifically on March the 30th and say, I’m frustrated that the word is not getting out that I’m not under investigation, but if there are people that are in my circle that are, let’s finish the investigation. Is that how you took it, as well?
COMEY: Yes, sir. Yes.
LANKFORD: And then you made a comment earlier about the attorney general — previous attorney general — asking you about the investigation on the Clinton e-mails, saying that you’d been asked not to call it an “investigation” anymore, but to call it a “matter.”
And you had said that confused you. Can you give us additional details on that?
COMEY: Well, it concerned me, because we were at the point where we had refused to confirm the existence, as we typically do, of an investigation, for months, and it was getting to a place where that looked silly, because the campaigns were talking about interacting with the FBI in the course of our work.
The — the Clinton campaign, at the time, was using all kind of euphemisms — security review, matters, things like that, for what was going on. We were getting to a place where the attorney general and I were both going to have to testify and talk publicly about. And I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation?
And she said, yes, but don’t call it that, call it a matter. And I said, why would I do that? And she said, just call it a matter.
And, again, you look back in hindsight, you think should I have resisted harder? I just said, all right, it isn’t worth — this isn’t a hill worth dying on and so I just said, OK, the press is going to completely ignore it. And that’s what happened.
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.
LANKFORD: It gave the impression that the campaign was somehow using the same language as the FBI, because you were handed the campaign language and told to be able (ph) to use the campaign language…
COMEY: Yeah — and — and again, I don’t know whether it was intentional or not, but it gave the impression that the attorney general was looking to align the way we talked about our work with the way a political campaign was describing the same activity, which was inaccurate.
We had a criminal investigation open with — as I said before, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. We had an investigation open at the time, and so that gave me a queasy feeling.
LANKFORD: Thank you.