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.”

 

Related Topics:
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

Seattle Police Didn’t Provide Access to Lawyers 96% of the Time: Report

Published

4 months ago

on

December 26, 2023

By

The Seattle Police Department violated the law and didn’t give people under 18 access to a lawyer when it was supposed to 96% of the time, according to a new report released Friday by the city’s Office of the Inspector General.

The OIG audited the Seattle Police Department on its compliance with two laws, a city-level law called the MiChance Dunlap-Gittens Ordinance and a similar state law, RCW 13.40.740. The laws require police give those under 18 years old access to a public defender before the youth waives their right to remain silent. Police also must provide attorney access when requesting consent for a search, according to the OIG.

The OIG examined 89 arrests and found 50 cases where the laws applied. In those cases, access to an attorney was only provided twice. The OIG broke the interactions into four categories: Custodial Interrogation, which made up half of the cases; Consent to Search, 3 cases; Detained and Questioned, 7 cases; and Arrested, No Evidence of Questioning, 15 cases. Both of the instances where attorney access was provided were in this last category.

READ MORE: DOJ Report Says Louisville Police Needlessly Use Tasers & Dogs on Civilians

In an appendix, the OIG laid out eight recommendations, including updating the Seattle Police Department’s policy manual, requiring officers to “make a good faith effort” to check the age of the person detained, and to perform regular internal audits on whether or not the law is being followed by officers.

SPD’s chief operating officer, Brian Maxey, said it was sometimes difficult to determine if someone is legally a minor, according to the Times, but admitted that “in some instances there are clear gaps in officers’ understanding of the laws and inconsistencies in practice.”

The law is named for MiChance Dunlap-Gittens, a high school senior shot in 2017 following a botched sting operation. King County sheriff’s detectives investigating a homicide attempted to create a sting to catch a suspect. Dunlap-Gitten was killed when he attempted to flee. The suspect the detectives were after also fled, but was caught by a SWAT team that night, according to the Seattle Times. However, neither teenager was involved at all in the homicide under investigation.

Dunlap-Gittens’ death led to a $2.5 million ruling against King County in 2020. In addition to the victim’s family receiving the money, the sheriff at the time apologized and promised to make her officers wear body cameras and use dash cameras, according to the Times. Shortly following the settlement, the Seattle City Council passed the ordinance. A similar ordinance also went before the King County Council. A year later, RCW 13.40.740 passed the State Legislature.

Continue Reading

CRIME

Giuliani Booking Photo Released

Published

8 months ago

on

August 23, 2023

By

Former Trump attorney and former Republican Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani was booked in Fulton County, Georgia Wednesday afternoon on racketeering charges and charges related to attempts to overturn the 2020 election.

He was released on a $150,000 bond after being arraigned on 13 charges.

“Conditions include prohibitions against intimidating co-defendants or witnesses, and against communicating with co-defendants other than through their lawyers. Giuliani must check in with pretrial services every 30 days,” USA Today reports.

READ MORE: ‘Wrong on the Law, Wrong on the Facts’: Fani Willis Smacks Down Jeff Clark’s Legal Move in Scathing Response

Former Trump attorneys Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell were also booked and their photos have been made public as well.

See all three mug shots below or at this link.

Continue Reading

CRIME

‘Moral Turpitude’: Bill Barr Hammers Donald Trump

Published

8 months ago

on

August 17, 2023

By

Former Trump Attorney General Bill Barr delivered one of his harshest criticisms to date of his former boss on Thursday, accusing Donald Trump of “moral turpitude.”

“You know, you don’t get immunity for two years in the run-up to an election just by saying, ‘Hey, I’m a candidate,'” Barr told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto.

“These investigations have been going on for a while, everyone knew about them even before he announced his candidacy,” Barr continued. “So if there’s a chance to get it resolved before the election, it should be because the American people should know these are crimes involved – or potential crimes – involving moral turpitude.”

Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute says moral turpitude is “wicked, deviant behavior constituting an immoral, unethical, or unjust departure from ordinary social standards such that it would shock a community.”

READ MORE: ‘Truly Scandalous: Jim Jordan Slammed by Former Top DOJ Official

Barr also talked about the two federal cases brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, one for Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, and one for his refusal to return classified and other documents.

“I think the federal cases are legitimate,” Barr said. “At the end of the day, at the core of this thing he engaged in – in the case of the documents – in outrageous behavior where anyone would be prosecuted. I don’t know of any attorney general who could walk away from it.”

“He’s not being prosecuted for having the documents, he’s being prosecuted for obstruction, two egregious instances are alleged so I think that’s a very simple case.”

Barr also said for him, Trump “crossed the line” when “he used this device of impaneling imposter electors, swearing that they were the electors, but the key point there was, they were in tandem with a plan whereby the vice president would use that as a pretext for nullifying the legal and certified votes. So it was a calculated and deceitful plan to remain in office by nullifying and negating certified legal votes.”

Watch the videos below or at this link:

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.