Exoneratist Second Debate on the Mueller Probe - Conflict of Inteerest

As stated in the First Debate, May 12, 2018, the Exoneratist is launching competitive statements of her views, verbally attacking statements and actions by conservatives, liberals, the media, and the branches of governments of our Republic. These debates will be central to the Mueller Probe and will include the Exoneratist’s pragmatic reactions to falsities and immoralities.

Timeline covered by the Debates
2016
September 8, 2016 – Senator Jeff Sessions, as United States Senator, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak.

2017
January 20, 2017 - Inauguration of Donald J. Trump as 45th President of the United States.

January 23, 2017 (approx.) Sally Q. Yates, formerly part of the DOJ under Obama, acting as interim DOJ Attorney General for Trump.

February 7, 2017 – Senator Jeff Sessions was appointed DOJ Attorney General by Trump.

March 1, 2017 – DOJ Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, as he knew he would have a conflict of interest.

May 8, 2017 – DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authored a document to President Trump calling for the firing of FBI Director James B. Comey, due to the fact Comey mishandled the probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails.

May 8, 2017 – FBI Director James B. Comey was fired by Trump on the recommendation of Rosenstein.

May 9, 2017 – FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, acting as interim FBI Director.

May, 16, 2017 – Robert Mueller (a former DOJ FBI Director under Obama) was appointed special counsel by DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. As special counsel, Mueller was to head an investigation of any connections between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government. This investigation is termed “the Mueller Probe.”

June 6, 2017 – Christopher Wray was appointed FBI Director by Trump.

August, 2017, DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein prepared a directive in which he laid out the scope of Mueller’s Investigation, a/k/a “the scope memo.”

2018
March 16, 2018 – DOJ FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired by DOJ FBI Director Jeff Sessions, based on findings from DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz and the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR).

May 4, 2018, the document, referred to as “the scope memo,” was requested by Virginia Federal Judge Ellis, so that he could determine if the Mueller Probe was exceeding its authority. Prosecutors balked at turning over the scope memo.

May 18, 2018, Recent reports (without confirmation) have been issued that the unredacted scope memo has been given to Judge Ellis. He now knows if the authority has been exceeded, but, as of now, the public is not privy to the unredacted memo, and therefore we residents in our Republic still do not know if the Mueller Probe does in fact exceed its authority. Who stands for our right to know? What will be the consequences for the Mueller Probe exceeding its authority?

June 5, 2018 (approx.) – Andrew McCabe requested criminal immunity in exchange for testifying before the Senate about what McCabe knows of the corrupt FBI operations in 2016 and 2017.

SECOND DEBATE – CONFLICT OF INTEREST

1. NO DOJ POLICY RE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR BIAS
   Following is a recent statement by DOJ Attorney General Jeff Sessions:
   “THE DOJ HAS NO POLICY TO VET PROSECTORS FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR BIAS.”
   Sessions’ above statement has been an eye-opener as to why the Mueller Probe has continued for over a year and yet there is no decision as to whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. You see, without such a policy, prosecutors and other top DOJ officials are allowed to let any personal bias or personal conflict of interest determine each of his or her course of action.

Conflict of interest and bias create preconceived and often unreasonable decisions and crush any possibility of receptiveness to the truth, and freedom from prejudice of the judicial system. This extremely dangerous situation exists in the DOJ Mueller Probe. The Probe has become a political football for the last year with the US citizenry straining to understand, “what is the accusation against Trump and the Russians?” That football is the word “collusion” and following that football as it has been kicked around for the last year has been a feat of pure perseverance on the part of Americans in the face of the ridiculous – no collusion found.

It has proven to be unilaterally a way for political operatives to leak false and demeaning inuendoes that are meant to bring down an American President to the point of leaving him completely at the mercy of the liberal media, the liberal congress and the liberal members of the DOJ Officials and Mueller prosecutorial team. Donald J. Trump has found himself in this situation for the past year. And NOW WE KNOW WHY! As there is no rush to stop their conflict of interest and obvious bias, the DOJ OFFICIALS AND PROSECUTORS actually believe that there is collusion EVEN THOUGH THEY CANNOT FIND IT. THEY MUST CONTINUE TO HOPE THAT THEY WILL FIND IT.
And the Exoneratist positively states (argues) that this belief and hope has brought about the following actions amounting to fraud, abuse and misconduct on the part of MUELLER, ROSENSTEIN and YATES.

1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROMOTES ROSENSTEIN TO INVESTIGATE TRUMP FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN FIRING COMEY, EVEN THOUGH ROSENSTEIN KNOWS THIS IS AN UNREASONABLE AND PREJUDICIAL INVESTIGATION

Leaks have suggested that Mueller may be investigating Trump for possible Obstruction of Justice because Trump fired Director Comey. The following quote from Virginia Federal Judge Ellis knocks this investigation out of the water:

“Judge Ellis remarked upon Rod Rosentstein’s conflict of interest in the investigation into whether Comey’s firing amounted to obstruction of justice – a matter legally absurd enough on its face but made more so by the fact that Rosenstein himself (supposedly overseeing Mueller’s work) was the very author of the memorandum to the president calling for Comey’s firing.” 1

When Judge Ellis states above, “a matter legally absurd enough on its face,” he is alluding to the following legal facts:
(a) DOJ Deputy Attorney General, Rosenstein, because of his office, should be cognizant of the fact that President Trump has full power to fire the FBI Director. In fact, the president has held the power to appoint and dismiss the director of the FBI at his or her discretion since 1968. This process was created by an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, and

(b) Further in the above quote, Judge Ellis magnifies Mueller’s and Rosenstein’s conflict of interest by stating the fact that Rosenstein himself was the very author of the document directed to the president calling for Comey’s firing.

The Exoneratist would insert here the possibility that Rosenstein has become so obsessed with bringing down President Trump, that he has lost any and all common sense. It is definitely time for Rosenstein to recuse himself from the Mueller Probe. Also, although there is no policy to vet prosecutors for conflict of interest or bias in the DOJ, there is the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and there is the DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. Perhaps Rosenstein should be worried that he might be mentioned in the long-awaited upcoming IG Report, as the IG’s Office is in charge of detecting fraud, abuse and misconduct in DOJ and FBI programs and personnel.

1. ACTING DOJ ATTORNEY GENERAL SALLY YATES INVOLVED IN SURVEILLANCE ON AMERICAN POLITICAL OPPONENTS
   Following is a quote from an article by Robert Barnes (2):
   “The Washington Post . . . details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents including intercepting calls of her political adversaries.”

   It has been leaked (only) that as Acting Attorney General in the DOJ, Yates knew about surveillance against members of the Trump administration, and she did not notify Trump and/or his team. She listened in herself and reported what she heard to others. As she had been appointed by the Obama administration, Yates was misusing her office if she was part of a secret investigation of her political opponents. Did Yates obtain a warrant for this Trump administration surveillance? Did Yates leak calls within the Trump administration to the press? Did Yates have probable cause for this surveillance? These questions need to be answered. Yates may have compromised the rights of the Trump administration by violating the 4th Amendment wherein unreasonable search and surveillance with no probable cause is a violation.

Although there is no policy to vet prosecutors for conflict of interest or bias in the DOJ, Section 2511 of Title 18 of the codified U.S. Law, prohibits any unauthorized interception or disclosure of communication made over the phones, in person, or by electronic means. Further, subsection (e) makes it a crime for anyone to “intentionally disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication” even if the intercept, itself, was authorized. This is the law Yates may have violated, and this would certainly denote a conflict of interest as well. Yates needs to be investigated for both a violation of US Law and for employing a conflict of interest against the Trump administration.

There is good news on the horizon! The Exoneratist places high hopes in the office of the DOJ inspector general, Michael E Horowitz, as his office is in charge of detecting fraud, abuse and misconduct in DOJ and FBI programs and personnel. We have for some time been awaiting a promised report from Horowitz and, in fact, he has already stated publicly that Comey “defied authority” and was “insubordinate.” A mild start, but let’s wait and see what is in the report.

1. American Thinker, author Clarice Feldman
   www.//americanthinker.com/articles/2018/05

2. “Sally Yates Should be Investigated for Her Possible Role in Watergate-Style Surveillance,” by Robert Barnes
   https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/5/28/2018