Connect with us

CRIME

‘Nothing’ Should Stop DOJ From Investigating Trump – Not Even 60 Day ‘Unwritten Rule’ Says Former Inspector General

Published

on

Former Dept. of Justice Inspector General Michael Bromwich says “nothing” should stop the DOJ from investigating Donald Trump, not even the department’s unwritten “60-day rule” about not intentionally influencing the outcomes of elections.

Bromwich’s resumé reads like a walk through late 20th century political history. As a federal prosecutor at the vaunted U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), which was once headed by Robert Morgenthau, Jim Comey, Preet Bharara, and even the now-disgraced Rudy Giuliani, Bromwich prosecuted Lieutenant-Colonel Oliver L. North.

As Inspector General at DOJ, Bromwich investigated the FBI’s investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and the Bureau’s investigation into former Central Intelligence Agency counterintelligence officer Aldrich Ames, convicted in 1994 of espionage for spying for the USSR and Russia. He’s also represented former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, and served as the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management under President Barack Obama.

READ MORE: ‘Disingenuous Grandstanding’: Kevin McCarthy Mocked for Trying to Bully Merrick Garland With Powers He Does Not Have

“Nothing–not even the unwritten rule– should stop DOJ from following up on the scores of investigative leads generated by the Mar-A-Lago search,” Bromwich writes, “including interviews of the people seen moving the doc[uments]. That’s not ‘overt’ unless Trump or his employees choose to make it so.”

Bromwich was responding to a tweet from The New York Times that reads: “As the midterms near, Justice Department officials are weighing whether to temporarily scale back work in criminal investigations involving Donald Trump because of an unwritten rule forbidding overt actions that could improperly influence the vote.”

That tweet points to a Times’ article that says, “As the midterm elections near, top Justice Department officials are weighing whether to temporarily scale back work in criminal investigations involving former President Donald J. Trump because of an unwritten rule forbidding overt actions that could improperly influence the vote.”

“Under what is known as the 60-day rule,” the Times adds, “the department has traditionally avoided taking any steps in the run-up to an election that could affect how people vote, out of caution that such moves could be interpreted as abusing its power to manipulate American democracy.”

READ MORE: ‘Jerked Around’: Bill Barr Destroys Trump, Says It’s ‘Unprecedented for a President to Take All This Classified Info’

Then-FBI Director Jim Comey infamously violated that rule when he announced in a letter to Congress barely weeks before the 2016 presidential election that he was re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. That move “probably” threw the race to Donald Trump, according to FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver.

Bromwich is not the only attorney speaking out in reference to the Times piece.

Civil rights lawyer and former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) Sherrilyn Ifill writes: “Trump is not on the ballot, and won’t be for two years. He has not even declared his candidacy. It can’t be the ‘rule’ that a DOJ investigation or indictment ‘might’ affect or influence a vote in *any* election. Otherwise they could never act. Come. On.”

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

CRIME

‘Big Shoe Drops’: Bad Day for Trump on Multiple Fronts in Special Counsel’s Grand Jury Probes

Published

on

Judge Nixes Trump’s ‘Executive Privilege’ Claim, Orders Mark Meadows, Stephen Miller, Other Top Aides to Testify as Corcoran Completes Grand Jury Appearance

It’s a bad day behind the scenes for Donald Trump.

First, his own attorney, Evan Corcoran, just past noon on Friday walked out of a federal court building after completing more than three hours of testimony before Special Counsel Jack Smith’s grand jury investigating the ex-president’s unlawful retention and refusal to return hundreds of sensitive, classified, and top secret documents.

His testimony, compelled by a subpoena, is seen by a former top DOJ official as “the most critical evidence in the case,” and should “allow DOJ to make a charging decision without significant delay.”

READ MORE: ‘Pits Parents Against Parents’: House Republicans Pass Anti-LGBTQ Florida-Style K-12 ‘Parents’ Bill of Rights’

Prosecutors, citing the crime-fraud exception, were able to convince a federal judge that Trump likely committed a crime via his attorneys, enabling them to bypass attorney-client privilege.

Trump had strived to block Corcoran from testifying, but a federal judge and an appeals court, in an extraordinarily quick turnaround – some legal experts saying for reasons likely related to national security – ordered him to testify.

Also Friday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell rejected Trump’s claims of executive privilege and ordered testimony before Special Counsel Jack Smith’s grand jury investigating Trump’s actions related to the January 6 insurrection from eight former top Trump White House aides.

Among them, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller, and former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. Also, former national security adviser Robert O’Brien and former deputy chief of staff and social media director Dan Scavino, ABC News reports.

READ MORE: ‘Chilling’: Law Enforcement ‘Seriously’ Investigating Threats Ahead of Possible Trump Indictment Says Top WaPo Reporter

Meadows is a former GOP congressman seen by many as integral to the events of January 6.

“Former Trump aides Nick Luna and John McEntee, along with former top DHS official Ken Cuccinelli, were also included in the order, the sources said,” according to ABC News.

Former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Harry Litman weighed in, saying: “Another really big shoe drops: [Judge] Howell rejects Trump’s executive privilege claim and orders Mark Meadows and others to testify before Jan 6 [grand jury]. Meadows has really been able to stay on the sidelines. No more–even if he takes the 5th, which [would] then force [question] of immunity.”

 

Image of Donald Trump via Shutterstock

 

Continue Reading

CRIME

‘Officially on Georgia-Watch’: Legal Expert Says Possible Trump Probe Indictments Could Come at Any Time

Published

on

Professor of Law Joyce Vance says, “We’re officially on Georgia-watch,” now that a new grand jury has been constituted and could hand down indictments at any time in that state’s investigation into Donald Trump and his allies and their alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Vance, the well-known MSNBC legal contributor, podcaster, and former U.S. Attorney says in her Substack newsletter, “it’s entirely possible that this could be the week to expect the world to turn upside down.”

“The first signal we’ll probably get—you’ll be in a crowded restaurant, or at work, or on a train, or in the gym, and suddenly everyone’s phone will start blowing up all at once,” Vance explains. “Reporters tend to stalk the clerk of court’s office in person and online when they know a big case is close. We’re in that sweet spot, although it’s important to keep in mind that we could remain there for awhile.”

Vance does warn that “it’s not certain that anyone, let alone Donald Trump, will be indicted. But Fani Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, certainly seems to be giving off all the signals that she means business here.”

READ MORE: Tulsi Gabbard: Biden Cabinet Picks ‘Based on Genetics, Race, Blood, Genes’ – Same ‘Geneticist Principles Embodied by Hitler’

Assuming Trump does get indicted, what are the possible charges he might be facing?

“First up, election-related crimes: solicitation to commit election fraud, intentional interference with performance of election duties, interference with primaries and elections, and conspiracy to commit election fraud,” she explains. There could also be more “general crimes,” like “making false statements, improperly influencing witnesses, forgery, and general criminal solicitation.”

It might also get even more serious for Trump.

“Georgia’s state RICO statute could also be charged: RICO stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and originally referred to a federal law passed in 1970 to strengthen the tools and charges available to federal prosecutors for dealing with the unlawful activities of those engaged in organized crime—Mafia or other entities devoted to organized, ongoing, serious criminal conduct.”

As Vance points out, while it’s unknown if Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis will choose to indict Trump or anyone, the special grand jury foreperson who made headlines earlier this month made clear they had recommended multiple indictments.

Image: Official White House photo

 

Continue Reading

CRIME

‘Next Chapter?’ Manhattan DA Signals Trump Himself Might Finally Land Under Indictment

Published

on

Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg may finally have changed his mind about indicting former president Donald Trump.

The recent conviction of the Trump Organization and its chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg gave a glimpse of evidence that could tie the ex-president directly to the tax fraud scheme, such as a memo he signed approving chief operating officer Matthew Calamari’s illegal request to reduce his taxed salary to cover the cost of his untaxed corporate apartment, reported The Daily Beast.

“We now move on to the next chapter,” Bragg said last week after the company was ordered to pay $1.6 million in penalties for tax fraud.

Trump already asserted under oath in another case in 2021 that he personally oversaw Calimari’s compensation, and prosecutors have checks he signed to cover tuition at a private school for Weisselberg’s grandchildren, whose mother Jennifer Weisselberg has repeatedly told investigators she personally heard Trump discuss the scheme to artificially lower taxed salaries for his executives.

“This case has tentacles,” said Duncan Levin, a former prosecutor who now represents Jennifer Weisselberg and has been communicating with investigators.

The district attorney’s office declined to comment on what Bragg meant about another chapter, but former prosecutors from that office say their experience leads them to believe prosecutors will go after Trump.

“For people who want a certain outcome — to go after Trump — it gives hope,” said Catherine A. Christian, a former assistant district attorney who investigated financial fraud. “They’re going to be thorough. I’m doubtful he would have said ‘next chapter’ if they weren’t looking.”

RELATED: ‘I’ll grab you’: How Alex Jones and Ali Alexander were tapped to lead a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol

“It happens all the time with large, complex investigations,” she added.

Prosecutors had hoped to flip Weisselberg or company controller Jeffrey McConney, who was nearly labeled a hostile witness during the Trump Organization trial, but ultimately were unable to get their full cooperation.

“They didn’t flip, and they failed,” said former Manhattan prosecutor Jeff Chabrowe. “They tried to do everything they could, and in the end, they got a truncated thing here where they went after the organization and Weisselberg, and there’s this fine that’s pretty weak.”

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.