TRUMP’S LAST-DITCH TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE IS ALREADY IN MOTION: THE FIRING OF JEFF SESSIONS AND ROBERT MUELLER

The nation seems transfixed by the recent revelations in the book Fire and Fury about President Trump’s lack of mental competence and fitness to serve as President, but other than a few juicy tidbits – such as the fact that Trump likes to dine at MacDonalds because the food is pre-prepared and therefore less likely to be poisoned – there is really nothing new here. The fact that Trump is monumentally unfit and unprepared to carry out the duties of the Presidency has been plainly apparent to even the most casual of observers since Inauguration Day, when he gave his bizarre “American Carnage” speech and declared that the crowd size was “the largest ever.”

This is all very entertaining, but not terribly newsworthy. What does qualify as news, however, is the fact that amid this “witches brew” of chaos and controversy, the embattled White House appears to be starting a roll-out of its “nuclear option,” which is to try to stop the Special Counsel’s Russia investigation in its tracks by firing Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein, and then Special Counsel Robert Mueller himself.

Trump may be crazy like a fox. Realizing that Muller has him in his cross-hairs, with Flynn and Papadopoulos cooperating with him, and Muller now having conclusive evidence that Trump himself drafted the fake story while returning from Europe on Air Force 1 about Don Jr.’s meeting with the Russians in Trump Tower on June 9, 2016, The Trump Team must be now painfully aware that the jig is up. Mueller now has enough evidence to make an Obstruction of Justice case against Trump, and probably also has enough to establish that senior members of the Trump team –if not Trump himself – colluded with the Russians to successfully interfere with the 2016 presidential election. We know this because there is now sufficient public evidence of this in press reports, and it can be safely assumed that about 70% of what Mueller knows about Trump’s collusion and obstruction efforts has not yet been made public.

The only way to stop the Mueller investigation and the additional indictments and plea agreements that are expected to be rolled out over the next couple of months is for Trump to try to blow up the entire process, just as embattled President Nixon tried to do with the October 1973 “Saturday Night Massacre” firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus.

To be sure, Trump and his remaining close advisors must realize that this is a longshot “Hail Mary” pass, which marked the beginning of the end for the Nixon Presidency, but he is rapidly running out of options. We know by now that he is temperamentally and emotionally incapable of just patiently waiting for the next shoe to drop from Mueller’s office, which could be an indictment of Jared Kushner, Don Jr. or other senior staff members or close family members, or he could just decide to roll the dice and either stop the Russia investigation in its tracks or go up in flames trying.

The expression “going nuclear” may not be a euphemism, now that Trump is in a name-calling contest with the equally unstable leader of North Korea over who has the biggest nuclear button. There has always been a persistent “Wag the Dog” theory that when the going gets tough for a President, then the best option is to start a war to distract the public’s attention from other issues, such as scandal at the White House. However, never before has anyone hinted or even considered that a President would literally use the nuclear option to get himself out of a jam. With Trump, however, everything has changed. Who can say with confidence that Trump will never push the “nuclear button” just to create a distraction from the Mueller investigation? No one, you say? I thought so.

 

But first the “political nuclear option.” On Thursday, two top House conservatives —  Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee – called for Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign. The Republican drumbeat for Sessions to step aside will undoubtedly intensify over the next several days, with the White House no doubt issuing statements to the effect that Sessions should never have accepted the job in the first place if he knew that he would have to recuse himself from supervision over the Russia investigation. Fox News and Devin Nunes, or some other White House loyalist, can also be counted on to make seemingly high-minded statements about the Justice Department being in “chaos” and that there is an urgent need for change in leadership so that an new Attorney General can “take back control” of the Department and make sure that the Special Counsel’s investigation does not “go off the rails” by investigating matters that were never intended to be investigated (such as the Trump Organization’s finances and massive Russian funding).

Even though watching the Trump White House’s attempt to undermine and then terminate Mueller’s Russia investigation will be much like watching a massive car wreck unfold in slow motion, the country must prepare itself as best as possible, just as we would if a huge tsunami were approaching. To paraphrase a recent statement by Rep. Elijah Cummings, this is truly a battle for the soul of our democracy. When the dust settles, there will be no innocent bystanders. Every citizen must now choose a side, and your children and grandchildren will be asking: “Which side were you on?”

IN PRAISE OF THE “DEEP STATE” JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

On Tuesday, President Trump started the new year off with a bang with a Twitter attack against the “Deep State” Justice Department. In attacking his own Justice Department, Trump was using code words (“deep state”) often used by right-wing conspiracy theorists to describe the permanent liberal cabal of government employees that is entrenched deep within the federal bureaucracy, which they believe are resisting Trump’s efforts to root them out and bend all of the federal agencies to his will.

Last week, Trump went so far as to assert during a New York Times interview that he had the “absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice Department.” Sorry, Mr. Trump, you do not. That is not how the federal system works – at least not for the past 135 years.

The vast majority of FBI and other Justice Department employees are career law enforcement agents and attorneys who have been selected for their posts based upon merit, not on their party affiliation, connections or political ideology. Indeed, the U.S. Civil Service System dates back to 1883 and is designed to eliminate the ability of elected officials and political party operatives to decide who works for the federal government.

To be sure, the upper echelons of both the Justice Department and the FBI are White House political appointees, including FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein. However, beneath this upper crust, all Justice Department employees are hired based solely on their abilities and their merit, working diligently at their jobs without political interference or fear of retribution.

However, this does not mean that Justice Department employees cannot hold political opinions, vote, or make contributions to political candidates. Indeed, as Deputy AG Rosenstein recently explained to a Congressional committee, the political opinions and party affiliation of candidates for Justice Department positions are not taken into account in the hiring process. To do so would be a violation of the law. Under the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act, the “selection and advancement” for federal positions is “determined solely on the basis of relative ability, knowledge, and skills.” Nor, as Rosenstein has pointed out, can the Justice Department fire an employee for expressing personal political views, which is protected by the First Amendment, although the FBI did recently reassign FBI agent Peter Strzok from the Special Counsel’s Trump/Russia investigation to other duties when text messages by him that were disparaging of Trump were made public. Even though there is no evidence that such personal views by Agent Strzok influenced his professional work, his reassignment was entirely proper in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety or bias.

Trump appears to be persisting in his efforts to quash the Justice Department’s investigation of his team’s dealings with the Russians, even though those efforts have backfired to date. First, he tried to cajole then-FBI Director Comey into dropping the investigation of former NSA Michael Flynn’s Russia contacts during the campaign and the transition period. When Comey balked, Trump simply fired him. This strategy, however, had the unintended consequence of triggering the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and an intensification of the investigation.

Trump has also bitterly criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for having recused himself on the Russia investigation, but Sessions, to his credit, has more or less stuck by his guns and refused to be pressured into resigning.

Now Trump’s allies in the press and in Congress have intensified their efforts to discredit and undermine the FBI and the Special Counsel’s office in the eyes of the public.  One of Trump’s opening salvos attacked the FBI as supposedly being in “tatters” and therefore not worthy of public respect.  By vowing to restore the FBI to its former glory, or making it “greater than ever,” it seems likely that Trump is laying the groundwork for a possible firing of Mueller or, at the very least, indelibly tainting the Russia investigation as a partisan “witch hunt.” If he succeeds in this effort, then he will be inoculated, he hopes, from the fallout of any additional indictments or plea agreements with present and former members of the Trump team, which could then be dismissed as further evidence that the “deep state” is engaged in a slow-rolling “coup ” to oust Trump from the White House.

Trump’s campaign to undermine and dishearten the FBI appears to have been at least partially successful, since FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who has been one of the specific targets of the well-orchestrated assault on the FBI’s credibility, has announced that he will be retiring soon, even though he is only 49 years old. The FBI’s top lawyer, James Baker, was also abruptly reassigned last week.

If the Trump Administration and its allies continue on this course unopposed, they will have carried out their own “coup,” which will involve the politicization of the Justice Department for the first time in modern history, and the end of the Justice Department’s proud history of professionalism and political independence. The stakes could not be any higher.

TRUMP’S NOMINEE FOR FBI DIRECTOR WORKS FOR A LAW FIRM REPRESENTING ONE OF RUSSIA’S LARGEST NATIONAL OIL COMPANIES: CAN HE REALLY BE COUNTED ON TO OVERSEE A VIGOROUS INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE COLLUSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP TEAM?

On paper, Christopher A. Wray appears to be an excellent choice to serve as the next FBI Director. As a Yale Law School graduate and executive editor of the law review, as well as a law clerk to a federal judge, Wray seems to have the impeccable academic credentials to oversee the country’s chief law enforcement and investigative organization.

Wray also has had a long and distinguished career as a federal prosecutor and high-level official of the U.S. Department of Justice under President George W. Bush, where he led the successful federal investigation of Enron Corp. The FBI has referred to the work of the Enron Task Force as the “largest and most complex white-collar investigation” in the agency’s history.

After 9/11, while serving as Assistant Attorney General, the Department of Justice came under criticism for its attempts to legally justify the use of enhanced interrogation techniques such as “waterboarding,” which many experts viewed as the equivalent of torture. No doubt the Senate Committee reviewing Wray’s credentials will properly delve into Wray’s views on this subject and possible participation in the decision-making process at the Justice Department that led to the “sign off” on the use of such techniques.

As a litigation partner with the prestigious Atlanta and the Washington-based law firm of King & Spalding, Wray also caused more than a few eyebrows to be raised as a criminal defense lawyer for Governor Chris Christie during the “Bridgegate” investigation. When close associates of Christie were indicted for ordering the closing of some of the lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge in retaliation for perceived “failure” of the Mayor of Ft. Lee, New Jersey to support Christie in his last run for New Jersey Governor, the defense lawyers persistently demanded to see Governor Christie’s cell phone and phone records. Christie apparently used this cell phone to text with others during a key state hearing into Bridgegate, and the phone was even studied during a probe that Christie commissioned into the affair. However, this key phone went “missing” thereafter for an extended time period, until it mysteriously turned up in the possession of Christie’s lawyer – Christopher Wray. This is another subject that is likely to come up during Wray’s Senate confirmation hearing.

Even more troubling is the fact that Wray’s law firm – King & Spaulding – boasts on its website that it represents Rosneft, one of Russia’s largest state-controlled oil companies. http://www.kslaw.com/imageserver/KS.

Rosneft was prominently mentioned in the now infamous 35-page Dossier prepared by former British MI-6 agent Christopher Steele. The Dossier claims that the CEO of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, offered candidate Donald Trump, through Trump’s campaign manager Carter Page, a 19% stake in the company in exchange for lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia. The dossier claims that the offer was made in July while Page was in Moscow. Ironically, the Dossier goes on to allege that, by mid-October 2016, when Sechin and Rosneft came to the conclusion that Trump was unlikely to win the Presidential election, Sechin “put feelers out to other business and political contacts” to purchase a stake in Rosneft.

By strange (or not-so-strange) coincidence, Rosneft ended up selling a 19.5% stake in the company on December 7, 2016 — worth approximately $11 billion — to Qatar’s state-owned wealth fund, commodity trader Glencore Plc and an unidentified Cayman Islands firm, which the owners of are also unnamed.

In 2012, Rosneft and Exxon had arranged for a $500 billion oil drilling joint-venture, which was nixed by President Barack Obama when he imposed the 2014 sanctions that crippled Russia’s ability to do business with U.S. companies. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was the CEO of Exxon at the time. The lifting of sanctions by the Trump Administration would enable Exxon to renew its joint venture agreement with Rosneft, and presumably the law firm of King & Spalding would end up in the middle of the contract negotiations between those two companies, as well as Rosneft’s negotiations with other U.S. companies who would be joining the stampede to do business with the Kremlin and its many other state-owned enterprises.

If Wray was confirmed as the FBI Director, would he have to recuse himself with regard to the FBI’s critical role in the investigation currently being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller? The FBI is supplying most of the investigative resources that Mueller must rely upon to properly conduct his investigation. Without an FBI Director who is 100% behind Mueller’s investigation into meddling by Russia in the 2016 investigation and possible collusion with the Trump Team, as well as allegations that this collusion was covered up, the entire independent investigation could be placed in jeopardy. Similarly, if despite his law firm’s connections with a key Russian-owned company, Wray refused to recuse himself from the Russia-Trump investigation, a serious cloud could be cast over the FBI’s level of commitment to this critical matter.

One of several reasons why former Senator Joe Lieberman was generally considered to be unqualified for the FBI Director’s job was that his law firm – Kasowitz, Benson, Torres – has represented Trump for many years, including the handling of Trump’s lawsuit against journalist Tim O’Brian, author of “Trump Nation,” who had the audacity to write that Trump was only worth $250 million, not the billions he claimed. In other words, the nomination of Lieberman as FBI Director would have been perceived as the installation of a pro-Trump advocate in the middle of the Trump-Russia investigation, rather than the selection of a dispassionate objective leader to oversee the investigation.

Similarly, the nomination of Wray as FBI Director raises serious questions as to whether Wray – given his law firm’s affiliation with Rosneft – would be perceived as an attempt by Trump to install a “Russia-friendly” Director at the helm of the FBI.

JARED KUSHNER HAD CLOSE BUSINESS TIES WITH RUSSIA LONG BEFORE HE MET WITH THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR

The media is understandably fascinated by the revelation that Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn met with Russian Ambassador Kislyak at Trump Tower on December 1 or 2, 2016 (the White House has been rather vague as to the exact date). Apparently neither Kushner nor Flynn disclosed the meeting on their security clearance forms. Both of them have a lot of explaining to do. Not only was the meeting undisclosed, but the alleged reason for the meeting was highly unorthodox. According to an intercepted communication between the Ambassador and the Kremlin, Kushner had requested that the Russians give him access to a backchannel communications facility at the Russian embassy. His apparent intent was that he wanted to communicate directly with Moscow, free from the prying eyes and ears of the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies.

It also recently has been disclosed that Kushner had another undisclosed meeting during the Transition period with Sergey Gorkov, a KGB graduate and head of Vnesheconombank (VEB), the Russian state-owned bank that has been subject to U.S. sanctions. This bank has also been linked to Russian spy operations in the U.S.

While Kushner’s apparent level of trust in the Russians demonstrated by his meeting with Kislyak and Gorkov may be surprising, it was not completely unexpected. Kushner has strong business relationships with Russian individuals and companies tied to Russia and Vladimir Putin. In some cases, these relationships have been in place for many years.

In May 2015, Kushner’s real estate company paid $295 million for the majority share in the former New York Times Building on West 43rd Street in Manhattan as part of a deal with Lev Leviev, the Uzbek-Israeli “King of Diamonds” with close ties to Vladimir Putin. Leviev serves as chairman of Africa Israel Investments Ltd., which has a Russian subsidiary, AFI Development PLC, a public company traded on the London Stock Exchange which is one of the largest real estate development companies in Russia. Leviev is also chairman of the Federation of the Jewish Communities of the CIS (former Soviet republics), and is closely associated with Rabbi Berel Lazar, the Chief Rabbi of Moscow who is often referred to in the Jewish press as “Putin’s rabbi.”

In November 2014, Kushner and his brother Joshua also formed a real estate investment company – Cadre – which attracted substantial venture capital from Russian high-tech billionaire Yuri Milner. As founder of the investment firms Digital Sky Technologies (now called Mail.ru Group) and DST Global, Milner’s net worth went from zero to $12 billion in two years as a result of his investments in Facebook and other social media platforms. Milner also owned the largest Internet providers in Russia and elsewhere in eastern and central Europe.

Other Russian and Chinese investors who invested in Cadre and other Kushner companies were rewarded with U.S. visas as part of the EB-5 program. The program gives investors putting at least $500,000 into American companies a two-year visa and a pathway to U.S. citizenship.

Kushner and his wife, Ivanka, are also close friends with Russian billionaire and Putin crony Roman Abramovich and his wife, Dasha Zhukova. Ivanka invited her close friend Dasha to the Trump Inauguration in January 2017, and they have been frequently spotted together at the U.S. Open tennis tournament and other events.

Abramovich, who is perhaps best known as the owner of the legendary Chelsea Soccor club in London, was reported by BBC to have given a $35 million yacht to Putin as a “gift.” Abramovich is also the Chairman of the Board of Trustees Federation of Jewish Communities in Russia (FJCR), which is a major supporter and ally of President Vladimir Putin within Russia.

Abramovich has a one-third interest in Evraz PLC, one of the world’s largest steel manufacturing companies. Through one of its Canadian subsidiaries, Evraz supplied about 40% of the steel used for the construction of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in North Dakota.

One of Trump’s first actions in office was to sign an executive order expediting the approval of the Keystone pipeline. Construction of the pipeline had been halted by the Obama Administration in November 2015 based on environmental and other concerns. One of Trump’s campaign promises was to reverse this Obama order and to finish construction of the pipeline. Owned by TransCanada, the pipeline is intended to move Canadian tar sands oil southward through the Dakotas to Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas. On January 24th, Trump also signed another executive order requiring that the steel for all U.S. pipelines had to be made in the U.S. to the “maximum extent possible.” Two days later, TransCanada filed a presidential permit application for the Keystone pipeline with the U.S. Department of State, which was granted.

Ironically, much of the steel to be used for the Keystone pipeline had already been manufactured outside the U.S. by Abramovich’s company Evraz, and was sitting in a field in North Dakota waiting to be used once Trump “green lighted” the project. Evraz had lobbied heavily against provisions that would have mandated that all of the Keystone steel be made in the U.S., and they got their wish when Trump’s executive order contained enough “wiggle room” to ensure that all of Evraz’s foreign manufactured steel was used on the pipeline. Just to be doubly sure, Trump spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced on March 3, 2017 that Trump’s executive order requiring that U.S. steel be used on U.S. pipelines only applied to new pipelines, not those already under construction. This “clarification” meant that the Keystone pipeline was completely exempted from the executive order.

In March 2017, Jared, Ivanka, and their family took a ski vacation to Aspen, Colorado. There were some grumbling emanating from the White House to the effect that Kushner, as one of Trump’s senior advisors, should not have been off skiing in Aspen while Trump’s health care  agenda was going up in flames in Congress.

As it turned out, however, Kushner’s trip to Aspen was not completely a vacation. Roman Abramovich and his wife just happen to own a chalet in Aspen, and the two couples just happened to arrive in Aspen on the same day (March 18th). Although there were no photographs of the two families together in Aspen, it is reasonable to assume that – given the closeness of the relationship between the two families – Jared and Roman found some quality time together to close the Keystone pipeline steel deal and cover other business matters of mutual interest.

Thus Kushner, like his father-in-law, has a longstanding history and close affinity for Russian oligarchs who operate within Putin’s inner circle. At the same time, Kushner has had a longstanding suspicion (if not outright hostility) to federal law enforcement agencies and the media who, in his view, hounded his father out of the family business and into prison. It must have seemed perfectly natural, therefore, for Kushner to want to communicate directly with the Russians, out of sight from the media and unfettered by federal law enforcement/intelligence agency “interference.”

 

THERE IS ALREADY A SOLID BASIS FOR CONGRESS TO INITIATE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TRUMP

After the sudden firing of FBI Director James Comey for what Trump as much as admitted to Lester Holt of NBC was an effort to stop the FBI’s investigation of possible collusion between Russia and the Trump Team, and after telling the Russian Foreign Minister that he believed that Comey was a “nut job” and that his firing would make the Russian/Trump investigation go away, there is now a solid basis for the impeachment and removal of Trump from the Presidency.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)  announced in April 2017 that she will “fight every day until he is impeached.” A few weeks later, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that Trump’s actions “may well produce impeachment proceedings.” Other Democrats quickly followed, as well as some Republicans. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) was asked by reporters on Wednesday, May 17, 2017, whether he believed that Trump’s actions if reports were true — that Trump asked Comey to drop his investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn – whether such actions were grounds for impeachment. Rep. Amash responded, “yes.”

More recently, Congressman Lieu (D-Calif.), an attorney who practiced law while he was an Air Force JAG officer, announced that he is researching the issue of impeachment and is studying the Congressional Research Service’s excellent 2015 work entitled “Impeachment and Removal.”

The Trump White House is taking the possibility of impeachment proceedings seriously, and it has been reported that Trump’s private attorney and occasional spokesperson, Michael D. Cohen, has been at the White House assembling a team of lawyers to work on the impeachment issue.

If impeachment proceedings were commenced, they would first be considered in the House Judiciary Committee, of which Congressman Lieu is a member. In order for impeachment proceedings to be commenced against President Trump, a majority of the Judiciary Committee’s 4o members would have to vote in favor of impeachment before articles of impeachment were brought before the full House for a vote. Given the current make-up of the House Judiciary Committee (there are 23 Republican members and 17 Democrats), this would require only four Republicans to join the Democrats on the Committee in voting in favor of impeachment.

If a majority of the House favored impeachment of the President, the matter would then go to the Senate for a trial, which would be presided over by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote in favor of conviction for Trump to be removed from office.

There is already a substantial basis for impeachment proceedings of Trump to begin. His firing of Comey and other heavy-handed attempts to interfere with the Russia/Trump collusion investigation constitute an Obstruction of Justice that already far exceeds the obstructions engaged in by the Nixon White House in their failed efforts to quash the Watergate scandal and investigation. Keep in mind, the Watergate break-in was truly a “third-rate burglary,” and even though the ensuing cover-up was clearly an attempt to obstruct justice, the underlying crimes that led to Nixon’s resignation in 1974 and ignominious departure from the White House lawn aboard the Marine 1 helicopter were inconsequential when compared to the magnitude of the crimes that the FBI is investigating regarding Russia’s meddling with our 2016 Presidential election and apparent collusion with several high-level Trump operatives, including Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone and others. To the extent that Candidate or President-Elect Trump  knew and/or encouraged members of his team to facilitate or collude with Russia and its agents (including WikiLeaks) in its efforts to destabilize America’s democratic institutions and to tip the election scales in Trump’s favor, then Trump is guilty of “Treason” and “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” under the Constitution and should be removed from office.

In addition, to the extent that –since taking the oath of office on January 20, 2017 – President Trump has obstructed the FBI’s investigation into that Trump/Russian collusion, then that adds additional grounds for impeachment.

Only two Presidents have been impeached, but the charges against them were relatively minor as compared to the potential Treason charges to which Trump may be subjected. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson was impeached for attempting to replace his secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, without congressional permission. After impeachment by the House, he escaped being removed from office by a one-vote margin in the Senate. President Bill Clinton was the second president to be impeached during the Monica Lewinsky scandal of 1998. As much as Clinton’s conduct tarnished the office of the Presidency, even if he had been convicted in the Senate on the perjury and obstruction of justice charges for which he was impeached by the House (he was not), no one but the most zealous of his political enemies could have thought that Clinton’s prevarications regarding Ms. Lewinsky and her infamous dress threatened the fundamental pillars of our democracy.

Trump and his motley crew are truly in a league by themselves. At no time in American history have we had a President and his senior staff so eager to make a deal with a hostile foreign power in return for the keys to the White House, and at no time since the War of 1812 has a foreign power so threatened our democracy by mounting a direct attack on the American Homeland. While the burning of the U.S. Capitol and the entire city of Washington, D.C. by British troops on August 24, 2014, was a dark day in American history, no one ever alleged that the President of the United States or any of his administration colluded with the British.

In contrast, Trump gleefully invited WikiLeaks (and by inference the Russians) to violate U.S. criminal laws by hacking into Hillary Clinton’s emails and otherwise wreaking havoc on the American body politic during the 2016 Presidential campaign. He also surrounded himself with senior advisors – including Flynn, Manafort, Page and Stone – who he knew or should have known either had close ties with Russian or pro-Russian operatives, or were so totally lacking in political or moral scruples that they would do absolutely anything to advance the Trump cause or to subvert the Clinton campaign, regardless of the collateral damage that would be done to American security or democracy.

The stench of Treason and Obstruction of Justice is already permeating the White House and spreading rapidly. As Special Counsel Mueller and the Congressional committees continue their investigations, there is already more than enough evidence for the House Judiciary Committee to open an impeachment investigation. Our country deserves no less.

WHY MICHAEL J. FLYNN SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN IMMUNITY

Mr. Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner, recently issuing a tantalizing public statement as part of an aggressive lobbying campaign to obtain immunity for the former national security advisor: “General Flynn certainly has a story to tell, and he very much wants to tell it, should circumstances permit.”
While Flynn may have a story to tell, his sworn testimony would come at far too high a price if either Congress or the Justice Department were to grant him immunity in return for it. There are numerous reasons for this, and the indications that neither the House or Senate Intelligence Committees are jumping at the opportunity to immunize Flynn and thereby secure his testimony is an extremely positive development. Here’s why.
1. Flynn Is Too High Up In the “Food Chain.”
As a former senior Trump Campaign official and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump (albeit for only 28-days), General Flynn is a very high government official, and an immunity grant to him at this early stage of the investigation would violate one of the cardinal rules of any federal investigation. Absent extraordinary circumstances, immunity should only be granted to a subject or target of an investigation if he or she has credible evidence of criminal conduct by someone higher-up in the in the criminal conspiracy or racketeering organization. Immunity, therefore, is usually only offered to low-level players in order to “flip” them and obtain their sworn testimony against more prominent figures higher up in the criminal organization.
With the possible exception of President Trump and Vice President Pence, Mr. Flynn was at the top of the pyramid, at least during his short tenure in the White House. And there is no indication that VP Pence played any role in the Team Trump/Russian cabal. This leaves President Trump as someone who Flynn could implicate in his “story,” but there is absolutely no reason to give Flynn an “immunity bath” just because we are all curious to hear what he might say about the President. In all likelihood, everything will be disclosed in due time, with or without Flynn’s testimony.
2. Flynn Probably Doesn’t Know Much More Than What Has Been Publicly Disclosed.
Unlike Paul Manafort, whose ties to Russian and pro-Russian oligarchs goes back for more than a decade, General Flynn came fairly late to the “let’s play footsie with the Russians” game as a member of Team Trump.
The major tip-off that Flynn does not really have much more information that would be of interest to Congress or the Justice Department is that his lawyer took the unusual step to publicly announce that Flynn was seeking immunity. Usually, if a defense counsel has some real “smoking gun” information to offer up to government prosecutors in return for a grant of immunity to a client, they set up a closed-door, confidential meeting with the prosecutor, sit down, and go over the “proffered” testimony of the witness in great detail. Either Flynn’s lawyers had already gone down this path and had hit a dead end before issuing their press release, or Flynn did not really have much high value information to share in the first page, so the only available option was to create a media-hype that would stampede one or both of the Congressional committees into giving Flynn immunity in return for the promised “story.”
Flynn’s first major involvement with the far-flung Kremlin propaganda machine came in December 2015 where, less than a year after resigning from the U.S. military, Flynn showed up in Moscow at the 10th Anniversary Gala of Russia Today (RT), an arm of the Russian security apparatus. Flynn sat next to Vladimir Putin at this festive event and, overwhelmed with enthusiasm at being so honored as to be assigned o Putin’s table, jumped up to lead the well-heeled crowd in a rousing standing ovation for this Great Russian Autocrat.
Flynn was paid generously for his services, receiving over $67,000 from RT and three other Russian companies with close ties to the Kremlin. As if this was not enough of a red flag, Flynn apparently did not get clearance for his Moscow trip or these payments from the Pentagon, thus exposing himself to all sorts of possible disciplinary and criminal sanctions.
Then there was the now-famous December 2016 phone calls with the Russian Ambassador, which Flynn discussed the possibility of a Trump Administration lifting or at least easing sanctions against Russia. Flynn then lied to VP Pence about these phone conversations, resulting in the embarrassing situation where Pence was duped into making misleading statements to the press regarding Flynn’s contacts with the Russians. Even though he had been the DIA Director, Flynn either didn’t know or forgot that U.S. intelligence agencies monitor the phone conversations of high-level Russian officials in this country, and that it was likely that his conversations with the Russian Ambassador would be recorded. The transcript of Flynn’s fateful phone calls ended up on the desk of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who warned the White House that Flynn could be compromised by the Russians since he was spreading false and misleading stories about his contacts with the Russians. Shortly after the story broke, Flynn was forced to resign.
In all likelihood, before the truth came out, Flynn also lied about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador to the FBI, which is itself a federal crime under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001, even though he was not place under oath at the time. If so, this would be a “slam dunk” of a prosecution since all a federal prosecutor would only have to introduce two pieces of evidence in order to get a criminal conviction: (a) the transcript of the phone conversation between the Russian Ambassador and Flynn, and (b) the transcript or notes of the FBI’s interview with Flynn. Case closed. Flynn would then be sentenced to up to five years in prison, although the sentence would probably be on the lighter side if he decided to then tell his full “story” without immunity.
Flynn also has criminal exposure for his retroactive registration as a foreign agent for the Turkish government, while, at the same time, serving as a top advisor to the Trump Presidential campaign. The $64,000 question is why Flynn waited until after he had been terminated as the national security advisor before properly registering and informing Trump and other senior officials: “Oh, and by the way, I am working as an agent for a major foreign power; that’s OK, right?” Flynn also failed to timely disclose that his former consulting firm earned $530,000 in 2016 from a Dutch entity with ties to the Turkish government. What’s his explanation: “I was very busy at the time and just plain forgot.” Not very convincing.
3. History Teaches Us that It is Virtually Impossible to Prosecute Someone After Even a Limited Grant of Immunity

Even if Flynn were to be given limited “use” immunity, as opposed to “transactional immunity,” he could theoretically still be prosecuted under the federal criminal law based upon evidence that is totally independent of the evidence he may provide under oath through his own testimony. However, in practical terms, it would be virtually impossible to prosecute Flynn for any serious criminal offenses he may have already committed once he was granted “use” immunity by either Congress or the Justice Department. History has already proved this point.
On July 20, 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated all three of Oliver I. North’s Iran-contra felony convictions and overturned his conviction for having destroyed classified documents while he served as an aid to the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan. The major factor leading to this reversal was concern that North’s conviction had been tainted by testimony he had given to Congress on the promise that it would not be used against him.
In the summer of 1987, North, a former Marine Corps Lieutenant colonel who was alleged to have played a key role in getting arms from Iran to be delivered to the right-wing “contras” in Nicaragua, and his boss, John M. Poindexter, the national security advisor, had been given “use” immunity by Congress in return for his sworn testimony. This use immunity agreement had been made by Congress over the objections of independent special prosecutor, Lawrence M. Walsh, and without consultation with the Justice Department.
Similar to the current calls for an immunity agreement with Flynn — based upon the argument that the country and the public urgently needs to immediately know the whole truth about any possible collusion between the Trump Team and the Russians — there was a strong impetus by Democrats during the Reagan Administration to push the Congressional inquiry into President Reagan’s Iran-contra policies as vigorously as possible. Congressional Democrats wanted to get the public testimony of such high-profile witnesses as Oliver North, the assistant to then-National Security Advisor John Poindexter. North usually showed up for public appearances decked out in his spiffy Marine Corp uniform, and never disappointed in given dramatic testimony. The temptation was too much for publicity hungry members of Congress, and the testimony of North and Poindexter was unquestionably the high point of the hearings. Indeed, it was great theater, and many Americans, including myself, remember watching North testify before Congress.
However, the cost for such a spectacle was very high. By immunizing North and Poindexter, the Justice Department’s investigation and later prosecution of them was crippled from the start. The Justice Department invested a tremendous amount of time and money in prosecuting North and Poindexter, only to have those convictions overturned because of the prior immunity grants that they had been given by Congress. The government’s burden of establishing that the evidence used to convict North and Poindexter was completely unrelated to their Congressional testimony was an impossibly high one, and the government was unable to meet it, as the federal appeals court later determined in July 1990.
4. Immunity for Flynn Would Send the Wrong Message
Flynn’s legal predicament is entirely of his own making. Remember his chants of “Lock her up, lock her up” at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last summer? Remember his clenched jaw and sense of total outrage over the fact that a former Secretary of State had stored confidential data on a less-than-completely-secure server and was still walking around free, and even having the temerity to run for the Presidency? Remember his rants about the five Clinton aides who had been given immunity as part of the FBI investigation, speculating that they must have been involved in criminal conduct if they or their lawyers felt that they needed immunity?
Turnabout is not only fair play, but it provides an important “teaching moment” for the all of us. One of the fundamental ethical principles of our great society is that each person must take responsibility for their own words and their own actions. President Harry S. Truman had his now-famous saying on his desk in the Oval Office: “The buck stops here.” The Trump Administration seems to have gotten a new motto: “If you can pass the buck, do so, and there will be no adverse consequences.”
Flynn is on record as believing that if someone asks for immunity, they must be guilty of something. He has now asked for immunity, so he must believe that he is guilty of something. Whatever that “something” is, a full and fair investigation should be completed by the relevant Congressional committees and the FBI/Justice Department. What Flynn has to say about it right now is largely irrelevant, since has already ventilated his views in numerous lengthy interviews with reporters. Hearing his story once again under oath in a public forum would be interesting, but probably not very enlightening. If he wants to “give up” the President, there will be plenty of time for him to share his story with us after the criminal investigation and possible prosecution has run its course.
The only rational decision for Congress and the Justice Department to make – at least in the short term – is to just say “No.”

THE RELEASE BY BUZZFEED NEWS OF THE “TRUMP RUSSIAN DOSSIER” HIGHLIGHTS THAT THE FBI HAS KNOWN ABOUT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN’S TIES TO RUSSIA SINCE AT LEAST AUGUST 2016, BUT HAS CONDUCTED VIRTUALLY NO INVESTIGATION OF THESE ALLEGATIONS

The publication last Tuesday by BuzzFeed of the 35-page document – referred to as a “Dossier” — prepared by a former British intelligence officer regarding the ties between President-elect Donald J. Trump and the Russian government has triggered a huge political stir in Congress and, of course, in the Office of the President-Elect, but contains little news that has not been widely known within the media, as well as in the law enforcement and intelligence communities.
Specifically, the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies have had information relating to the direct communications between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government since at least July/August 2016, when it was first alerted that Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, and Carter Page, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, as well as other intermediaries, were receiving information originating with the government that was extremely helpful to the Trump Campaign, and extremely damaging to Hillary Clinton.
As I reported in my law firm’s blog on October 31, 2016 (www.mccallionlaw.com.blog ), the FBI was “applying a double standard when it comes to publicly confirming whether the FBI has active investigations relating to the two major Presidential candidates.” As I pointed out, FBI Director Comey’s cryptic letter to Congress — eleven days before the November 8th election — announcing that the FBI was reviewing some new emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton and her use a private email server, was grossly unfair to the Clinton Campaign and the American public, not only because it was inevitably designed to influence the outcome of the election, but because Comey was remaining silent as to the far more explosive investigation it had regarding to possible treason by high-ranking members of the Trump Campaign. Specifically, I sharply criticized Director Comey regarding his refusal to comment on “whether FBI agents had sought to speak with or had interviewed Trump former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, or his deputy, Rick Gates, even though it is widely known throughout the law enforcement and intelligence communities that there is an active FBI investigation of Manafort, Gates and others for money laundering and other illegal activities ever since documents surfaced in Kiev, Ukraine in August 2016 showing that Manafort had received over $12 million in cash from the pro-Russian former President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich.”
I was able to reliably report on these investigations since I had personally received reliable information regarding the money laundering operations by Manafort, Gates and others through various companies and bank accounts located in New York and elsewhere, and had brought a civil racketeering lawsuit on behalf of various clients against Manafort, Gates and a Ukrainian oligarch – Dimitri Firtash – who was supplying much of the illegal money that was then “laundered” through these U.S.- based accounts. We also named as a defendant Manafort’s former boss – Victor Yanukovich – – the pro-Russian former President of Ukraine, who was run out of Kiev during the so called “Maiden Revolution” in Ukraine in February/March 2014, and is now residing in Moscow under the protection of Vladimir Putin.
During our investigation, we also collected valuable information regarding the ties between Manafort/Gates and Russian oligarchs and organized crime leaders based in Moscow. All of this information was turned over to the FBI, and Firtash was later indicted by the U.S. Dept. of Justice on similar money laundering and corruption allegations.
The former MI-6 British intelligence officer also provided the FBI with specific information regarding the connections between Manafort/Gates and Russian operatives. For example, he reported in his “Dossier” that he learned “in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership [and that] this was managed on the TRUMP side by the republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries.”
In fact, the former MI-6 agent believed this and other information urgently needed to get into the hands of the U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, that – without even the permission of his private clients who had commissioned his investigation – he turned the fruits of his investigation over to U.S. law enforcement and others. He specifically alerted the FBI not only to the possibly treasonous activities by Manafort and Gates themselves, but also – as I had done – the various “ethnic Russian” operatives both within and close to the Trump Campaign.
Yet the FBI did nothing, and kept the entire matter under wraps while, at the same time, the agency leaked like a sieve as to Hillary Clinton’s emails and the “dangers” that some of her emails might have been hacked by Russian operatives.
I also reported in my October 31, 2016 blog that the FBI investigation also covered the money laundering activities of the Trump Organization with regard to the huge influx of cash from that Company from Russian and Eastern European sources, including money provided by known international criminals and organized crime racketeers. For example, the Trump Soho project in lower Manhattan was largely financed by illegally-obtained cash from Russia and Eastern European sources, including money provided by known international financial criminals and organized crime racketeers. The Trump Soho project in lower Manhattan was largely financed by illegally-obtained cash from Russia and several former Soviet Republics, and Trump specifically marketed his Sunny Isles, Florida apartment units in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other venues designed to attract Russian organized crime money, Such as the French Riviera. So much tainted Russian money poured into Trump’s Sunny Isles project that the entire area came to be referred to as “Little Moscow,” complete with Russian shops, restaurants and even directional signs.
As I have previously reported, foreign condo owners in Trump’s Sunny Isles project include Peter Kiritchenko, a Ukrainian businessman arrested on fraud charges in San Francisco in 1999, who, with his partner — former Ukraine Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, laundered hundreds of millions of dollars through the U.S. and elsewhere. Kiritchenko avoided jail time in the U.S. by agreeing to testify against Lazarenko, who was convicted of money laundering and spent 13 years as a client of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
Other proud owners of Trump condos at Sunny Isle include Anatoly Golubchik and Michael Sall, members of a Russian-American organized crime group who ran an illegal high-stakes sports betting ring catering almost exclusively to wealthy oligarchs from the former Soviet Union. The list goes on and on.
Based on the fact that Trump’s buildings in New York and Florida were filled with Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs and their families, the Trump Organization (and therefore the Trump Campaign) were in a unique position to collect detailed ongoing information regarding these Russian/Ukrainian expatriates, which was a very valuable bargaining chip with Putin and the Russian intelligence organizations, since Putin has always been paranoid about the ability or likelihood of various Russian oligarchs to undermine his iron grip on all things Russian, both domestically and internationally. So the Dossier (at page 11) has the ring of truth to it to the extent it further reports that a “Source close to TRUMP campaign …confirms regular exchange with Kremlin has existed for at least 8 years, including intelligence fed back to Russia on oligarchs’ activities in the US.”
It was not until the President-Elect strongly denied being briefed about the Dossier at his Thursday news conference – calling it “fake news” – that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and others felt compelled to correct the record by confirming that Trump had, in fact, been briefed on the Dossier, and that FBI Director Comey had specifically taken Trump aside during the recent intelligence briefing to advise him that this information was “out there.” In fact, it has now been disclosed that the Dossier had been widely circulated before the BuzzFeed publication and that it was the height of irresponsibility for the President-Elect to accuse the intelligence community for the “leak” of such a widely available document.
The former MI6 agent has disappeared “off the grid” and is unavailable for comment. Definitely a wise move. The stakes here are very high, and the Kremlin kleptocracy has shown no compunction about terminating with extreme prejudice even those on foreign soil whom they deem pose a threat to them. One of my sources regarding Trump’s Sunny Isles’ holdings recently died after falling (or being pushed) off an apartment balcony of a Sunny Isles apartment. Was his death related to our continued investigation of the ties between the Trump Organization and Russian/Ukrainian oligarchs and organized crime operatives with apartments in Sunny Isles, or was his death a coincidence and unrelated to this investigation? Strangely, his computer and phone went missing, so it is difficult – if not impossible – to fully investigate his contacts in the final days and hours before his fateful plunge. Very unsettling.
In any event, President Elect Trump’s baseless attacks on the press and intelligence communities should not detract from the most important “take away” from the release of the Dossier, and its importance has virtually nothing to do with alleged sex tapes from a Moscow hotel, or whether Trump is a “germaphobe” or not. Those are all sideshows and distractions from the real issue of paramount national importance: Did high-ranking members of the Trump Campaign, including several of those following him to the White House, commit high crimes and misdemeanors – basically treason – against the United States and, if so, what did the President Elect know about it and when did he know it. Question 2: Why did FBI Director fail to disclose its investigation of the Trump Organization’s Russian ties at the same time that he was making public statements about the Clinton email investigation. In other words, why was Director Comey focusing the public’s attention on the tail of the dog (the email investigation), without disclosing the much more important investigation of the dog itself.
The American people have a right to know. NOW!

COMEY, GIULIANI AND THE POLITICALIZATION OF THE FBI

No matter what the outcome of the Presidential election, the FBI is shaping up to be one of the biggest losers of this election season. Over one week’s time, the FBI’s well-deserved reputation for being a professional law enforcement agency operating above the political fray has been virtually flushed down the toilet into the murky cesspool of contemporary American politics.
On Friday, October 28, 2016, FBI Director James Comey gave us his “October Surprise”, darkly hinting through a thin veil of innuendo that Hillary Clinton might be due for another round of email investigations. Shortly after he sent this incendiary letter up to Capitol Hill, it was leaked that the possible renewed FBI interest in Secretary Clinton was a fallout from a probe of former Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer that he had shared with his estranged wife and top Clinton aide, Huma Abedin. As further details emerged, it was learned that the FBI had not actually seen the emails on Weiner’s computer because no court order had yet been issued or even sought permitting a search of his computer. Nor did the FBI know whether Weiner’s computer contained any emails that were sent to or from HRC, and if so, whether those emails were merely duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI.
In other words, Director Comey intentionally interjected the FBI into the Presidential Campaign, and since the clear (albeit erroneous) implication to the public was that the FBI Director would not send a letter to Congress on such an important topic eleven days before a national election if he had not already determined – at least preliminarily – that the new emails contained some “smoking gun” classified documents that would warrant a reopening of the FBI’s investigation of Ms. Clinton.
What we now know one week later is that Director Comey knew or should have known at the time he released the letter to Congress (knowing that it would be made public a few nanoseconds after it reached the Hill) was that an agent or agents in the FBI’s New York field office had already leaked the story about these “new emails” to the Trump Campaign. This is why Rudy Giuliani was already appearing on Fox News, smiling like the Cheshire cat and barely able to keep himself from spilling the news that he knew was about to be publicly released by the FBI. He cryptically announced that the Trump Campaign had “a couple of things up our sleeve” that would be “game changers.” And then, as if on cue, the FBI Director drops the letter bombshell two days later.
One week later, four days before the election, Giuliani confirmed that he knew that something big was happening at the FBI, thus confirming that FBI insiders had leaked information to the Trump Campaign in advance of Comey’s announcement. Giuliani insisted that he had learned about this information from former FBI agents, who had presumably received the information directly from active FBI agents, but whether the leak to Giuliani was a one step or a two-step process makes little difference. The important point is that the FBI has now joined the Russians and WikiLeaks as full-fledged members of the Stop Hillary campaign.
For the past 40 years of the post-Watergate era, the FBI and the Department of Justice have largely steered clear of partisan politics, re-building a generally well-deserved reputation as professional investigative (in the case of the FBI) and prosecutorial organizations. Public release of information regarding criminal investigations came only after indictments were handed down, and if a decision was made not to indict a high-profile subject or target of an investigation, any derogatory information obtained about that individual was not leaked to the press. Such information remained secure in the FBIs confidential files, no matter how frustrating it was to the FBI agents or AUSAs who had worked on the case, only to have it decided by higher-ups in Washington that the investigation would not proceed to an indictment and trial.
One notable exception to this general rule was Rudy Giuliani, who was as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and then U.S. Attorney in New York was so consumed by an overwhelming ambition for publicity and self-promotion, that he regularly leaked information about Grand Jury investigations and other confidential information to the press on “deep background.” He was often at the center of the “anonymous sources” within the Justice Department that reporters were so fond of citing. To be sure, Giuliani had many successful prosecutions of high-level political and organized crime figures during his tenure as a federal prosecutor, but his habit of leaking information to the press in advance of indictments or before a trial did some irreparable damage to the professional reputation of the federal prosecutors office in New York and the federal judicial system here.
The flip side is that Rudy Giuliani also took a “pass” on some cases involving high profile individuals, such as Donald Trump. During the time period that Trump Towers and Trump Plaza were being built in Manhattan, the mob-controlled Teamster Local 282 and its President, John Cody, had a virtual lock on every major construction site in the City. Every truck driver who drove a redi-mix cement truck onto a jobsite was a member of Local 282, and if the real estate developer did not make an illegal side deal with John Cody’s union, the flow of redi-mix cement would be cut off and the entire construction project would grind to a halt. Through the good offices of Roy Cohn, the mentor and godfather to Donald Trump, a deal was made with Local 282 whereby Trump agreed to hire no-show Teamster foremen, whose salaries were then funneled to the organized criminal organizations controlling the Teamster Local. Trump also agreed to modify the construction of Trump Tower to accommodate an apartment for one of Cody’s girlfriends and mob associate, Verona Hixon, who wanted a swimming pool included with her massive Trump Tower apartment, which was second in size only to Trump’s own apartment.
In order to close the deal with organized crime and guarantee that his Manhattan construction projects would not be interrupted by labor strife or work stoppages, Trump and Cohn also made a deal with “Fat” Tony Salerno, another notorious mob figure who owned C&A Concrete, the redi-mix cement company whose trucks delivered the cement to the Trump Towers and Trump Plaza job sites. Trump readily agreed to pay C&A an inflated contract amount, knowing that the excess profits would go into the coffers of organized crime.
During the Justice Department investigation of Teamster Local 282, the FBI and federal prosecutors working on the case were able to get the cooperation of at least one of the developers who made a corrupt deal with the union, but when Donald Trump was questioned about his dealings with the union, he refused to cooperate and adamantly denied that he had any illegal deal with either Local 282 or with C&A Concrete. With some difficulty, the Justice Department was still able to indict and convict John Cody on racketeering charges based upon the testimony of Sigmund Somers, one of the other major real estate developers in the New York area, but the investigation and prosecution would have gone much more swiftly if Trump had cooperated. Moreover, once Cody was indicted, he called a City-wide strike of truck drivers that closed down every major job site in the New York City area, with the notable exception of the Trump Towers and Trump Plaza job sites, which were specifically exempted by the union, based in large measure to the fact that Trump had proved himself to be a “stand up guy” who had refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement.
In fact, since lying to FBI agents and federal prosecutors is itself a federal crime, even if those false statements are not made under oath, there were those within the federal law enforcement community, myself included, who strongly felt that Donald Trump should have been indicted, but we were overruled by those further up the ladder in the Justice Department. At the time, in 1981 and 1982, Rudy Giuliani was the Associate Attorney General, the third highest official in the U. S. Department of Justice. As part of his supervisory responsibilities over all the U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country, Giuliani would have necessarily had a decisive policy-making role as to whether the major labor racketeering investigation underway at that time, including the investigations of Teamster Local 282 and C&A Concrete, would have focused exclusively on the prosecution of corrupt union leaders and organized crime controlled construction companies, or whether real estate developers like Donald Trump who had entered into unlawful racketeering agreements with organized crime controlled unions and construction companies but who refused to testify truthfully about it should also be prosecuted.
By actively participating in the transformation of the FBI from a professional non-partisan agency into a political arm of the Trump Campaign, Rudy Giuliani is helping cause irreparable damage to the FBI’s integrity and reputation. And if Giuliani were to be named as the next Attorney General of the United States, this country would have the most political and partisan Attorney General since John Mitchell was found guilty of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury following the Watergate Scandal.