• DOJ Alumni Statement

    From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to All on Tue May 7 02:39:10 2019
    Hello Everybody,

    Just the news, folks. Just the news.
    And what great news it is.

    Over 400 signatories.
    Former prosecutors have their say.
    The verdict is IN -

    STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

    DOJ Alumni StatementFollow
    May 6

    We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system:
    as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States
    Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The
    offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban,
    suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

    Each of us believes that the conduct of President Trump described in
    Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report would, in the case of any other person not covered by the Office of Legal Counsel policy against
    indicting a sitting President, result in multiple felony charges for obstruction of justice.

    The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the
    elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or
    attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the
    evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming. These include:

    · The President’s efforts to fire Mueller and to falsify evidence
    about that effort;

    · The President’s efforts to limit the scope of Mueller’s investigation
    to exclude his conduct; and

    · The President’s efforts to prevent witnesses from cooperating with investigators probing him and his campaign.

    Attempts to fire Mueller and then create false evidence

    Despite being advised by then-White House Counsel Don McGahn that he
    could face legal jeopardy for doing so, Trump directed McGahn on
    multiple occasions to fire Mueller or to gin up false conflicts of
    interest as a pretext for getting rid of the Special Counsel. When
    these acts began to come into public view, Trump made “repeated efforts
    to have McGahn deny the story” — going so far as to tell McGahn to write a letter “for our files” falsely denying that Trump had directed Mueller’s termination.

    Firing Mueller would have seriously impeded the investigation of the
    President and his associates — obstruction in its most literal sense. Directing the creation of false government records in order to prevent
    or discredit truthful testimony is similarly unlawful. The Special
    Counsel’s report states: “Substantial evidence indicates that in
    repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the
    Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of
    influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent scrutiny
    of the President’s conduct toward the investigation.”

    Attempts to limit the Mueller investigation

    The report describes multiple efforts by the president to curtail the
    scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation.

    First, the President repeatedly pressured then-Attorney General Jeff
    Sessions to reverse his legally-mandated decision to recuse himself
    from the investigation. The President’s stated reason was that he
    wanted an attorney general who would “protect” him, including from
    the Special Counsel investigation. He also directed then-White House
    Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to fire Sessions and Priebus refused.

    Second, after McGahn told the President that he could not contact
    Sessions himself to discuss the investigation, Trump went outside
    the White House, instructing his former campaign manager, Corey
    Lewandowski, to carry a demand to Sessions to direct Mueller to
    confine his investigation to future elections. Lewandowski tried
    and failed to contact Sessions in private. After a second meeting
    with Trump, Lewandowski passed Trump’s message to senior White House
    official Rick Dearborn, who Lewandowski thought would be a better
    messenger because of his prior relationship with Sessions. Dearborn
    did not pass along Trump’s message.

    As the report explains, “[s]ubstantial evidence indicates that the President’s effort to have Sessions limit the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation to future election interference was intended
    to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct” — in other words, the President employed a private
    citizen to try to get the Attorney General to limit the scope of an
    ongoing investigation into the President and his associates.

    All of this conduct — trying to control and impede the investigation against the President by leveraging his authority over others — is
    similar to conduct we have seen charged against other public officials
    and people in powerful positions.

    Witness tampering and intimidation

    The Special Counsel’s report establishes that the President tried to influence the decisions of both Michael Cohen and Paul Manafort with
    regard to cooperating with investigators. Some of this tampering and intimidation, including the dangling of pardons, was done in plain
    sight via tweets and public statements; other such behavior was done
    via private messages through private attorneys, such as Trump counsel
    Rudy Giuliani’s message to Cohen’s lawyer that Cohen should “[s]leep
    well tonight[], you have friends in high places.”

    Of course, these aren’t the only acts of potential obstruction detailed
    by the Special Counsel. It would be well within the purview of normal prosecutorial judgment also to charge other acts detailed in the report.

    We emphasize that these are not matters of close professional judgment.
    Of course, there are potential defenses or arguments that could be
    raised in response to an indictment of the nature we describe here.
    In our system, every accused person is presumed innocent and it is
    always the government’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable
    doubt. But, to look at these facts and say that a prosecutor could not
    probably sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice — the standard set out in Principles of Federal Prosecution — runs counter to logic
    and our experience.

    As former federal prosecutors, we recognize that prosecuting
    obstruction of justice cases is critical because unchecked
    obstruction — which allows intentional interference with criminal investigations to go unpunished — puts our whole system of justice
    at risk. We believe strongly that, but for the OLC memo, the
    overwhelming weight of professional judgment would come down in
    favor of prosecution for the conduct outlined in the Mueller Report.

    If you are a former federal prosecutor and would like to add your name
    below, click here. Protect Democracy will update this list daily with
    new signatories.




    Signatories have been vetted to the best of our ability.


    PoliticsObstruction Of JusticeDepartment Of JusticProtect
    DemocracyPresident Trump

    3.4K claps
    20
    Follow

    DOJ Alumni Statement

    --
    Nobody Beats Our Meat

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Lee Lofaso on Mon May 6 18:04:32 2019
    We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system:
    as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States
    Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The
    offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban,
    suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

    [...]

    This has all been pretty clear since the begining, even before the Donald was elected.

    I was flabbergasted the he was elected last election night. I wonder what the next election night holds in store?

    --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Gregory Deyss@1:267/150 to Alan Ianson on Mon May 6 23:10:37 2019
    We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system:
    as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban, suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

    This has all been pretty clear since the begining, even before the
    Donald was elected.

    It should of also been abundantly clear that all the King's Men and all the King's Horses couldn't stop Trump.

    Why? should be obvious all the nasty things, made up or otherwise.
    There is not any measurement of truth within them.

    I was flabbergasted the he was elected last election night. I wonder
    what the next election night holds in store?

    Better get a get a 'chin pillow' for the next election.

    . ______
    _[]_||__||
    { Gregory |
    /-00-----00'-;

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Capital Station BBS * telnet://csbbs.dyndns.org * (1:267/150)
  • From Lee Lofaso@2:203/2 to Alan Ianson on Wed May 8 04:07:37 2019
    Hello Alan,

    We are former federal prosecutors. We served under both Republican and
    Democratic administrations at different levels of the federal system:
    as line attorneys, supervisors, special prosecutors, United States
    Attorneys, and senior officials at the Department of Justice. The
    offices in which we served were small, medium, and large; urban,
    suburban, and rural; and located in all parts of our country.

    [...]

    This has all been pretty clear since the begining, even before the Donald was elected.

    Over 500 people have since signed the document. How many more
    is anybody's guess.

    I was flabbergasted the he was elected last election night. I wonder what the next election night holds in store?

    Who says he is going to leave after the next election? The speaker
    of the house does not believe he will leave, even if defeated.

    The US could wind up having its own dictator before you know it.

    --Lee

    --
    I Take A Sheet In The Pool

    --- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)