Corruption from 2016

For John, BLUF:  This whole collection of items from the 2016 Election should have gone away several years ago, but it hasn't.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

FBI official on Mueller team said Flynn prosecution had 'get Trump' attitude, collusion probe was 'not there'

Here is the sub-headline:

FBI official William Barnett was assigned to lead the bureau's original investigation into Michael Flynn

From Fox News, by Reporter Brooke Singman, 25 September 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

An FBI official who served on Robert Mueller’s team said he believed the special counsel’s prosecution of former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was part of an attitude to “get Trump,” and that he did not wish to pursue a Trump-Russia collusion investigation as it was “not there" and considered it to be a "dead end."

FBI agent William J. Barnett made the comments during an interview on Sept. 17 at the Justice Department, before Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri Jeffrey Jensen, who was tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to review the case against Flynn. Jensen has joined U.S. Attorney John Durham’s team in his review of the origins of the Trump-Russia probe. Those comments have surfaced in new government documents.

Fox News reviewed Barnett’s FBI 302, which was filed by the U.S. government early Friday as part of the Flynn case.

Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the bureau’s original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name “Crossfire Razor,” which was part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation — the bureau’s code name for the original Trump-Russia probe.

In another thread someone wrote:

Oh, quit going on about acceptance of the 2016 result. Every has yielded to the result; the Dems just don’t like it. What do you care? He’s been doing everything a president is constitutionally able to do and more.

Here is my response:

I think it is the time lapse problem here.  If everyone had agreed after the Inauguration it would have been OK with me.  But, things continued after the Inauguration.  DOJ Career people seemed to just carry on.  Jim Comey was unable to walk away.  I wonder about the role of Sally Yates, or DNC Apparatchiks.  There were FBI guys who took out extra liability insurance.

Lawyer and Author Sidney Powell just got a “302” that indicates that even after the election they kept after the “Trump Team” in a less than professional way.  FBI Agent William Barnett talked of “Lack of integrity on the part of the Bob Mueller Team.”  Where is Inspector Lewis Erskine (Efrem Zimbalist, Jr) when you need him?

So, yes, I would like it to all go away.  I especially don’t want to see it reach into the Oval Office. That would blight the process for a long time.  But, the story keeps dripping out, drop by drop.  And, because the Judiciary wouldn’t let LTG Michael Flynn walk away they just keep it going.

In early this year we had an Impeachment on flimsy grounds, so Ms Pelosi hadn’t yet given up in the first part of this year.  Then Judge Emett Sullivan, a hero to me for his handling of the Ted Stevens case, stopped DOJ from dropping chargers against LTG Flynn.  I was very disappointed.

Now we are in the political silly season again and we are back to Trump being illegitimate.  Sure, he is President and gets to sign legislation and appoint Ambassadors, but the Dems have become cranky again.  Everything is off the table.  (Or is it Nothing is off the table?)  Please tell me Rep Gerry Nadler is not running again.

But, in closing, one wonders, in the back of the mind, if Judge Emmet Sullivan has keep the Michael Flynn thing going because he wants to smoke out these sub-rosa activities that tainted the “peaceful transfer of power”. Maybe he is a hero this time also.

Hat tip to News Reader Elizabeth MacDowell.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sally Yates Fails the Ethics Test

For John, BLUF:  Acting Attorney General Sally Yates failed the ethics test, but so are a bunch of others, including presumable dedicated neutral Civil Servants.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Whistleblowers and the Real Deep State

Here is the sub-headline:

Civil servants too often forget they work for the people and seek to impose their own policy agendas.

From The Wall Street Journal, by Reporter Kimberley A. Strassel, 11 October 2019.

Probably behind a paywall.

Here is the lede plus four:

House Democrats are plowing ahead with an impeachment effort inspired by accusations from an anonymous “whistleblower.”  The lawmakers may allow the witness to testify anonymously, sources who themselves remained anonymous told the Washington Post this week.  It’s as if the whole effort is designed to confirm President Trump’s complaint that the “deep state” is determined to sabotage his presidency.

By “deep state,” Mr. Trump seems to mean any current or former federal employee who works to undermine him.  I find that definition too broad, and it misses an important distinction.  Officials like James Comey and John Brennan, respectively former directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, were appointed by politicians and are subject to some public scrutiny and political accountability.

The “deep state”—if we are to use the term—is better defined as consisting of career civil servants, who have growing power in the administrative state but work in the shadows.  As government grows, so do the challenges of supervising a bureaucracy swelling in both size and power.  Emboldened by employment rules that make it all but impossible to fire career employees, this internal civil “resistance” has proved willing to take ever more outrageous actions against the president and his policies, using the tools of both traditional and social media.

Government-employed resisters received a call to action within weeks of the new administration.  Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates became acting attorney general on Mr. Trump’s inauguration and Loretta Lynch’s resignation.  A week later, the president signed an executive order restricting travel from seven Middle Eastern and African countries.  Ms. Yates instructed Justice Department lawyers not to defend the order in court on the grounds that she was not convinced it was “consistent” with the department’s “responsibilities” or even “lawful.”  She decreed:  “For as long as I am Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order.”

Mr. Trump fired her that day, but he shouldn’t have had to.  Her obligation was to defend the executive order, or to resign if she felt she couldn’t.  Nobody elected Sally Yates.

Every subordinate owes his or her boss a "But, sir".  However, after that "But, sir" one is obligated to execute or resign.  To stick around and sabotage some project of the boss is not just unethical, it is destructive of the idea of our form of Government.  It returns us to 1880, to the time before the Pendelton Act and a professional Civil Service, in the wake of the assassination of President James A Garfield.

But, the neutrality of the Civil Service was questioned before the Administration of President Trump.  There was the IRS and Ms Lois Lerner, working against the Tea Parties, and other groups, including those oriented toward Democratic Party themes, by denying tax except status in an effort to thwart those political factions.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

President Obama on Russia Gate before November 2016

For John, BLUF:  Do you think they were trying to stitch up LTG (ret) Michael Flynn, who was probably a pain in the rear?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Colluders, Obstructionists, Leakers, and Other Projectionists

From American Greatness, by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, 26 May 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

Before the defeat of Hillary Clinton, the idea that the Russians or anyone else could warp or tamper with our elections in any serious manner was laughed off by President Obama.  “There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America’s elections,” Obama said in the weeks leading up to the 2016 election.

Obama was anxious that the sure-to-be-sore-loser Trump would not blame his defeat on voting impropriety in a fashion that might call into question Clinton’s victory.  After Clinton’s stunning defeat,  Russian “collusion”—thanks initially to efforts by Obama holdover Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to go after Michael Flynn and the successful attempts of the CIA and FBI to seed the bogus Steele dossier among the government elite—became a club to destroy the incoming Trump Administration.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Doing One's Duty

For John, BLUF:  How do we restore ethical credibility at DOJ?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Elitists’ Trump Excuse

Here is the sub-headline:

His critics may be more corrupting to democracy and decency than he is.

From The Wall Street Journal, an Opinion Piece by Mr William McGurn, 23 April 2018.

Here is a bullet point from Mr McGrun which I find pointing to an especially unethical approach:

• When Sally Yates was acting attorney general and President Trump issued an executive order on immigration she objected to, Ms. Yates ordered the entire Justice Department not to obey, despite a finding from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that the order was lawful.  She was applauded in her insubordination by Andrew Weissmann, then a Justice attorney, who now serves on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team.  But it’s all for a good cause, right?

I don't dispute Ms Yates' right to find something to be illegal, although the finding of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel should have given her pause.  And, if she felt something was unethical or immoral she would have been within her rights.  And, every employee owes the boss a "But, Sir".  It is a duty one owes to one's supervisor.

It seems that this is not what we got from Acting Attorney General Yates.  It appears she decided that she should just say no to the President.  Not the kind of thing one should expect from Executive Branch Civil Servants, let alone those filling appointed positions.  This was just wrong.  She should have just submitted her resignation.

What is equally disturbing is that DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissmann applauded the activities of Ms Yates in circumvention of a lawful Presidential Order.  Having thus demonstrated an animus toward President Trump, he then failed to recuse himself from the work of the Special Counsel.  Mr Weissmann's actions may not violate the ethical rules of DOJ, but I find it to be unethical in a larger sense.  Why would I place any faith in Mr Weissmann's work for the Special Counsel?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Like Caesar's Wife

For John, BLUF:  The FBI is going to need a strong leader, like J Edgar, moving forward, but with more ethics and more respect for the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why I Am Leaving the F.B.I.

It is from The Old Gray Lady, the institution that used to lead the charge for freedom of speech and openness.

The author of this OpEd is former Special Agent Josh Campbell, from 2 February 2018.

I would be a lot more impressed with this cri de coeur if there was a mention of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, or some of the botched prosecutions where the Brady Rule was violated.

And, there is the sense, outside of Main Justice, that there is a certain arrogance on the inside, a certain sense that they are in charge.  My prime example is Acting Attorney General Ms Sally Yates, who, when she couldn't agree with the President, defied him, rather than tendering her resignation.  She should have talked to Special Agent Campbell.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Unforced Errors

For John, BLUF:  Being Anti-Trump, and obvious about it, is not compatible with being impartial in investigations by the Special Counsel.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

New Emails Show Special Counsel 'Pit Bull' Cheered Sally Yates For Blocking Trump Travel Ban

By Reporter Katie Pavlich, 5 December 2017.

The lede:

New documents obtained by government watchdog Judicial Watch show a top DOJ prosecutor, who is now working as a deputy on Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s investigation, cheered the decision by former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to defy orders and refusal to enforce President Trump’s first travel ban in January. Yates was the acting attorney general at the time and was promptly fired for her defiance.

Emails show Andrew Weissmann, who served as chief of the Justice Department’s Criminal Fraud Section under President Obama, loved Yates’ refusal to implement the ban.

“I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects,” Weissmann wrote.

The New York Times has described Weissmann as “Mueller’s Pitbull.”

And it isn't like Ms Sally Yates was on the proper side of the question, at least per the US Supreme Court.

And, as for Mr Andrew Weissmann, Here is Law Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds' comment:

Nothing says “independent and professional” like fanboi squee at sticking it to the hated Trump.  These people are embarrassing.

It seems to me that Mr Mueller needs to tighten up his organization and explain to his players that there are ethics rules and explain to them that leaking information is unethical.  And he needs to start thinking about the Brady disclosure rules.  He has to not only be good, but also look good.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Creeping (And Creepy) Coup

For John, BLUF:  This kind of childish behavior will stick around for a long time.  I hope we don't go the way of Latin America.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Slow Motion Coup d'Etat Picks Up Steam

Posted by William A. Jacobson, at his blog, Le•gal In•sur•rec•tion, Thursday, 3 August 2017.

Here is the sub-headline:

Leak of full transcripts of presidential conversations with foreign leaders a milestone in effort to paralyze the Trump administration.

Here is the lede plus:

Since the election there has been an unprecedented attempt to unwind the election result. Events have accelerated on several fronts lately with attempts from outside and within to paralyze the Trump administration.

What started as a collective media freakout on Election Night 2016 quickly progressed to an unprecedented attempt to intimidate Electors into changing their votes. Some Democrats announced, even before Trump took office, plans to impeach him, and Democrat politicians fed media-driven Russia collusion conspiracy theories for which they knew there was no evidence.

Chuck Schumer, for example, used the alleged fact of Donald Trump being under FBI investigation as an argument against confirming Neal Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, even though Schumer (but not the public) knew from intelligence briefings that Trump was not personally under investigation.

All the while, the permanent bureaucracy, particularly in the intelligence community, started an unending and almost daily series of leaks meant to paralyze the administration.

Here is the new steps taken Thursday:

The effort to paralyze the administration was advanced significantly today with the release by The Washington Post of leaked full transcripts of Trump’s conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia soon after he took office. There had been leaks about those conversations previously, but never the full transcripts.

The leak is being celebrated and the transcripts quoted (often out of context) for the purpose of scoring political points against Trump. But more than that, this represents yet another dangerous example of how leaks have been weaponized to try to paralyze the Trump administration.

The Professor then goes on to cite The Atlantic's David From, who I blogged about here.

And former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates gets discussed.  In supporting the Deep State she has displayed neither morals nor ethics.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff