NANCY PELOSI: THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER OF A SAN FRANCISCO ELITE PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT
COMMUNISTS IN THE CLASSROOM?

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ROBERT MUELLER AND HIS TEAM SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED AS PART OF THE POLITICAL CABAL

CABAL

In an extraordinary document meant to preserve presidential privilege and protect the separation of powers between the co-equal branches of government, the Special Counsel to the President, Emmet T. Flood, notified Attorney General William Barr, that the Mueller Report submitted to the Attorney General by Special Counsel Robert Mueller did not comply with existing law, rules, and regulations. It is a stinging rebuke to Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team and demonstrates conclusively that the report was produced for political reasons which are not sanctioned under the law.

Excerpts from the April 19, 2019 Flood letter…

I write on behalf of the Office of the President to memorialize concerns relating to the
form of the Special Counsel's Office (“SCO'”) Report (“SCO Report” or “Report”) and to
address executive privilege issues associated with its release.

The SCO Report suffers from an extraordinary legal defect: It quite deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of governing law. Lest the Report's release be taken as a ''precedent" or perceived as somehow legitimating the defect, I write with both the President and future Presidents in mind to make the following points clear.

I begin with the SCO’s stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO concluded that the evidence “prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred." SCO Report v.2, p.2. But “conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred" was not the SCO’s assigned task, because making conclusive determinations of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.

What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to charge, they make that decision not because they have '·conclusively determin[ed] that no/> criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence, any more than they are in the business of '·exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to “conclusively determine" it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were obliged to prove “conclusively”  … that no criminal conduct occurred.”

Because they do not belong to our criminal justice vocabulary, the SCO's inverted-proof standard and “exoneration” statements can be understood only as political statements, issuing from persons (federal prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties. The inverted burden of proof knowingly embedded in the SCO's conclusion shows that the Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.

Second, and equally importantly: In closing its investigation, the SCO had only one job -- to "provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel,” 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c). Yet the one thing the SCO was obligated to do is the very thing the SCO - intentionally and unapologetically - refused to do. The SCO made neither a prosecution decision nor a declination decision on the obstruction question. Instead, it transmitted a 182-page discussion of raw evidentiary material combined with its own inconclusive observations on the arguable legal significance of the gathered content. As a result, none of the Report's Volume II complied with the obligation imposed by the governing regulation to “explain[] the prosecution or declination decisions reached.” Id.

The SCO instead produced a prosecutorial curiosity - part "truth commission” report and part law school exam paper. Far more detailed than the text of any known criminal indictment or declination memorandum, the Report is laden with factual information that has never been subjected to adversarial testing or independent analysis. That information is accompanied by a series of inexplicably inconclusive observations (inexplicable, that is, coming from a prosecutor) concerning possible applications of law to fact. This species of public report has no basis in the relevant regulation and no precedent in the history of special/independent counsel investigations.

An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing law. Under general prosecutorial principles, and under the Special Counsel regulation's specific language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination memoranda. By way of justifying this departure, it has been suggested that the Report was written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of “road map” for congressional action. See, e.g., Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, 4/18/19 (Press Conference). If that was in fact the SCO's intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the SCO's refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its “legislative”
history make plain that the “[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose of preventing the creation of this sort of final report.1 Under a constitution of separated powers, inferior Article II officers should not be in the business of creating “road maps” for the purpose of transmitting them to Article I committees.

A great deal is said these days about the rule of law and the importance of legal norms.
In that spirit, and mindful of the frenzied atmosphere accompanying the Report's release, the following should not be forgotten. Government officials, with access to classified information derived from a counterintelligence investigation and from classified intelligence intercepts, engaged in a campaign of illegal leaks against the President. Many of those leaks were felonies. They disclosed the identity of a U.S. person in violation of his civil rights; they misused intelligence for partisan political purposes; and they eroded public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of our intelligence services. The criminal investigation began with a breach of confidentiality executed by a very senior administration official who was himself an intelligence service chief. This leak of confidential information, personally directed by the former Director of the FBI, triggered the creation of the SCO itself- precisely as he intended it to do.

Not so long ago, the idea that a law enforcement official might provide the press with
confidential governmental information for the proclaimed purpose of prompting a criminal
investigation of an identified individual would have troubled Americans of all political
persuasions. That the head of our country's top law enforcement agency has actually done so to the President of the United States should frighten every friend of individual liberty. Under our system of government, unelected Executive Branch officers and intelligence agency personnel are supposed to answer to the person elected by the people -- the President -- and not the other way around. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue; it is a matter of having a government responsible to the people -- and, again, not the other way around. In the partisan commotion surrounding the released Report, it would be well to remember that what can be done to a President can be done to any of us.

These leaks and this investigation also caused immense and continuing interference with
the functioning of the Executive Branch.

The pendency of the SCO investigation plainly interfered with the President's ability to carry out his public responsibility to serve the American people and to govern effectively. These very public and widely felt consequences flowed from, and were fueled by, improper disclosures by senior government officials with access to classified information. That this continues to go largely unremarked should worry all civil libertarians, all supporters of investigative due process, and all believers in limited and effective government under the Constitution.

Those wishing to read the letter in full and in context, it can be found here.

Bottom line…

I see no legal reason why Robert Mueller and his hyper-partisan team should not be considered part of the criminal cabal of high-ranking Obama Administration officials to damage a sitting president on behalf of the Democrat Party for the purposes of interfering with the 2020 presidential election and defrauding the government of millions of dollars producing this political aberration.

Let us see how much attention this letter gets in the mainstream media that often acts as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party?

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell


Comments