The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Bar Association of Montgomery County’s Law Day Celebration

Rockville, MD

 ~ 

Friday, May 4, 2018

Remarks as prepared for delivery. 

Thank you, Chief Judge Barbera, for the kind introduction. You are an inspiration for all Maryland lawyers. We deeply appreciate your exemplary leadership of our state judicial system.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to spend this time with so many friends and colleagues. My parents raised me in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. My wife and I raised our children in Montgomery County, Maryland. Both were named for Richard Montgomery, an American patriot killed in action in 1775, while serving as a general during the Revolutionary War. A few years ago, I took my daughters on a road trip to Montreal, and we visited the spot where Montgomery died. His final orders were recorded as follows: “Come on, my good soldiers, your General calls upon you to come on.”

As you know, I have been working in our nation’s capital for the past year. There’s no place like home! But do not believe everything you read in the news or see on television. Almost every day is a great day in my job. It is a tremendous honor for me to serve in the Trump Administration and to assist Attorney General Jeff Sessions in leading the 115,000 men and women who compose the United States Department of Justice. We are accomplishing great things for America, and that is what really matters.  Just yesterday, I met with the President and the Attorney General at the White House to discuss some of the important progress we are making to keep America safe.

Today, I am elated to be with you to celebrate Law Day. The rule of law is definitely worth the time to celebrate. More importantly, it is worth the effort to sustain.

President Eisenhower first designated Law Day on May 1st, 1958.  Three years later, Congress passed a resolution codifying it.

Congress stated that Law Day “is a special day of celebration by the people of the United States … in appreciation of their liberties and … rededication to the ideals of equality and justice under the law.” The resolution goes on to recognize that “cultivation of the respect for law … is so vital to the democratic way of life.” 

On Monday, President Trump issued a Law Day Proclamation. The President said, “Law Day recognizes that we govern ourselves in accordance with the rule of law rather [than] … the whims of an elite few or the dictates of collective will. Through law, we have ensured liberty.” The point is that we do not achieve justice by polling the opinion of any person or group. We achieve justice through a process that seeks objective truth based upon credible and admissible evidence.

Each year, the American Bar Association suggests a theme for Law Day events.  This year’s theme is one I particularly value — the separation of powers. 

During my confirmation hearing last year, my daughters were studying American government at a high school not far from here. The hearing was a valuable illustration for them about the appropriate role of the constitutional separation of powers. Some of the senators expressed skepticism and concern about the executive branch, as you would expect, but almost all of the senators were respectful.

Each of the three branches of our government has a distinct but vital role to play in upholding the rule of law. The legislative branch enacts the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws. The judiciary interprets the laws. If you have children, as I do, you may be familiar with the Schoolhouse Rock jingle. But they chose to analogize our thoughtful system of checks and balances to a three-ring circus.

Of course, it is not that simple in practice. The interplay among the branches is incredibly complex, and our Constitution contemplates numerous checks and balances.

In the executive branch, we take an oath. We pledge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We promise to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. We attest that we take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. And we commit to well and faithfully execute the duties of the office, so help me God.

Faithfully enforcing the law is not about following a simple set of instructions. As the great champion of the law Robert H. Jackson put it, “law enforcement is not automatic.”  Enforcing the law requires discretion and judgment. 

When carrying out our enforcement duties, the executive branch is required to enforce the law as written by the legislature, and as interpreted by the judiciary.

I spent one year in the judicial branch, as a law clerk to D.C. Circuit Judge Douglas Ginsburg. Since then, I have worked in the executive branch.  

It is a great honor to serve the Department of Justice. When you enter the courtyard of the Main Justice building, you pass beneath a depiction of the scales of justice and an inscription that reads, “Privilegium Obligatio.” It means that when you accept a privilege, you incur an obligation.

Prosecutors exercise considerable discretion. A legal opinion by former Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner put it this way: “The Department of Justice wields enormous power over people’s lives, much of it beyond judicial or political review. With power comes responsibility, moral if not legal, for its prudent and restrained exercise; and responsibility implies knowledge, experience and sound judgment, not just good faith.” 

The point is made more concisely in a remark attributed to French Enlightenment philosopher Voltaire: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

If that quote sounds familiar, it was also said by another legendary person – Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben.

The point is that government officials who exercise discretion have a special obligation to make the right choice.

That requires experience, good judgment, and wisdom.

At the Department of Justice, our duty is in our name. Attorney General John Ashcroft famously said that we are the only cabinet department with a name that articulates a moral value.

Justice is not measured in the number of convictions secured. Our prosecutors and investigators learn from day one that their duty is to gather the facts, seek the truth, apply the law, and respect the policies and principles of the Department of Justice.

It is a bedrock principle, with very few exceptions, that we do not discuss investigations. The Department’s longstanding practice of keeping information about our investigations confidential has often been the source of disagreement with Congress. 

In 1941, Congressman Carl Vinson wrote a letter to Attorney General Robert Jackson. He requested FBI and DOJ reports made in connection with an investigation of labor disputes involving Navy contracts. Vinson’s committee had oversight for such issues, which is why he wanted the documents.  

Attorney General Jackson flatly refused the request.  He did not compromise at all. Jackson explained that disclosing investigative reports would harm the national interest in a number of different ways. 

First, it would “seriously prejudice law enforcement” by providing defense counsel with the government’s confidential impressions of the case.

Second, disclosing certain investigative reports would give aid to our enemies and jeopardize our national security.

Third, investigative reports often contain information about witnesses and informants. Releasing the information could stifle the FBI’s ability to obtain sources and could even put lives at risk.

The fourth reason is often overlooked. Jackson explained that handing over the documents could harm the reputations of innocent people. Being a subject of an investigation – or even a target – is not the same as being guilty of a crime. The Department of Justice conducts many investigations that never see the light of day because there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations.    

When we conclude an investigation without filing charges, we do not announce our findings. We are not the judge and jury. If we cannot prove our case beyond any reasonable doubt, there is no case.

When Attorney General Jackson responded to the Congress in 1941, he referenced case law, statements by prior Presidents, and letters from six other Attorneys General.

Jackson explained that declining to open the FBI’s files to review by congressional members and staff is an “unpleasant duty,” but it is in keeping with the separation of powers embodied in our constitutional system. To illustrate his point, Jackson quoted a Supreme Court opinion explaining that it is “essential to the successful working of this system that the persons intrusted with power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers confided to others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department.”

We all work for the American people, and we need to be held accountable for mistakes and misconduct. That is one reason why our Department includes an Inspector General. The Inspector General was established to ensure accountability without eliminating confidentiality. The Inspector General’s employees include sworn federal agents, attorneys, and other executive branch officers who have full access to Department files and personnel, but who are prohibited from making unauthorized disclosures.

Like the Deputy Attorney General, the Inspector General is accountable to the President. Within the next few weeks, I anticipate that our Inspector General will complete a comprehensive, fair and nonpartisan report that answers many questions about how the Department of Justice handled a high-profile investigation during the last presidential campaign. We will learn from it, and our Department will do better in the future.

Congressional oversight is important. Congress must be able to hold hearings, conduct inquiries, and require reports so that it knows the laws are being faithfully executed and the money it appropriates is being properly spent. But oversight is not intended to eliminate the line between executive branch authority and legislative branch authority. 

Our Constitution has provided us with the most stable and resilient legal system on Earth. According to the World Bank, the average constitution has a lifespan of about 19 years. Ours has lasted more than 12 times that—and it has endured through the most dynamic period of change in human history. It has served a big and diverse Union from the horse-and-buggy age to the space age to the digital age. No other Constitution has achieved that.

Our Bill of Rights, containing the first ten amendments, is often regarded as the pride of American government. But the Constitution originally had no Bill of Rights. The issue was considered during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, but the Constitution was ratified without it.

The Framers were more concerned about our government’s structure than a written guarantee of rights, because a written guarantee is only as powerful as the system in place to protect it. Our constitutional structure, and the separation of powers embodied in that structure, represents our government’s defining feature.

Justice Scalia explained that “it is those other humdrum provisions—the structural, mechanistic portions of the Constitution that pit, in James Madison’s words, ‘ambition against ambition,’ and make it impossible for any element of government to obtain unchecked power— that convert the Bill of Rights from a paper assurance to a living guarantee.”

The Founders dispersed power both horizontally and vertically. The three branches of the federal government check one another. The states and the federal government check one another. And the people check both the federal and the state governments.

Separation of powers can be frustrating. Prosecutors are sometimes disappointed when the judicial branch acquits someone it thought was guilty of a crime. But that is part of the genius of our system. Prosecutors collect evidence and decide whether it establishes a crime that warrants prosecution. We do not determine guilt.

I know that judges and legislators are sometimes frustrated by executive branch decisions, such as prosecutorial charging decisions.

The push and pull among and between the branches is bipartisan.  It exists regardless of which party is in power. Justice Scalia explained that Americans should “learn to love the separation of powers,” even though it frequently leads to controversy. That tension – the power of each branch to say no – is one of the things that protects liberty.  

Each of us has a role to play in protecting this unique and indispensable feature of our constitutional order.

Ultimately, in our system, sovereignty rests in the people. When “We the People” established the Constitution, it was a relatively novel concept. And “We the People” remain responsible for protecting it.

Our system of government is not self-executing. It relies on wisdom and self-restraint. In a democratic republic, liberty is protected by cultural norms as well as by constitutional text.

Lawyers and judges bear great responsibility for implementing and explaining those principles. The further we get from the founding generation, the less we appreciate how much everything depends on people rather than paper.

Abraham Lincoln believed that the best way to ensure the survival of our “edifice of liberty and equal rights” is to enshrine reverence for the rule of law in the hearts of the citizens.

“Let reverence for the laws,” he implored, “be breathed by every American mother … let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs — let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.”

And, Lincoln concluded, “let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions” keep the rule of law.

We are privileged to live in a country that is governed by the rule of law. It is easy to take for granted. I am thankful for Law Day and events like this because they provide us with an opportunity to reflect on the genius of the American Constitution.  

Thank you.

[David Dennison 19,530]

1 minute ago, triplehorn said:

Re Judge Ellis, this news from his grilling of Mueller prosecutors was easily missed:

"The judge asked the government to produce an unredacted copy of an August 2017 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller, which laid out in greater detail the matters that Mueller’s office was authorized to investigate. The majority of the memo, which was publicly filed, was redacted. Ellis said he wanted to see it — it would only be produced to him, not to the public or the defense — to determine if prosecutors were truthful in saying the rest of the document didn’t relate to Manafort.

Dreeben said he would need to consult with his office and the intelligence community. The judge gave the special counsel’s office two weeks to turn it over."

 

What happens if the intelligence folks refuse to unredact? It's not like Mueller's office redacted the information in the memo.

[TwiceHorn 32,076]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

What happens if the intelligence folks refuse to unredact? It's not like Mueller's office redacted the information in the memo.

Well, I suppose we don't really know who redacted it or what it contains, hence the judge's skepticism.  If it was redacted at the behest of the "intelligence community," then there is a fairly strong species of executive privilege that can be asserted relating to national security.  However, because the judge is only asking for "in camera" review (no one else gets to see it, it isn't public), it's going to have to be some pretty serious shit to refuse the review and that might cause the judge to infer some pretty bad shit about the prosecution.

 

Truth be told, it is a little sketchy having confidential memos that expand or confirm the scope of an investigation of a special counsel.

Edited May 6, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Grade of D as in David 13,255]

19 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You should try MSNBC during the day, specifically Nicole Wallace at 3PM.

She’s a Republican that worked in the GWB White House and usually has other conservatives on (not Trumpublicans).

For the legal stuff, The Beat with Ari Melber at 5PM is good

Chris Wallace and Joe Scarbrough blow goats

Chuck Todd is a tool

Maddow is hit or miss but when she hits, she really hits

Lawrence O’Donnell is annoying AF

Hugo, how do you justify watching that much TV? Who do you think you are POTUS?

[Upgrayedd 5,887]

Just now, Grade of D as in David said:

Hugo, how do you justify watching that much TV? Who do you think you are POTUS?

Dildos sell themselves 

[Pig Bellmont 8,885]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

What happens if the intelligence folks refuse to unredact? It's not like Mueller's office redacted the information in the memo.

Why would they not comply with an Order from a federal judge? Those things aren’t really optional 

[David Dennison 19,530]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

Why would they not comply with an Order from a federal judge? Those things aren’t really optional 

They'll make the argument they can that it has to do with national security and that the judge doesn't have security clearance. In that case, I think there are procedures for the judge and only the judge to see the unredacted information if he isn't satisfied with the government's summary of the memo. It's pretty interesting to see how secure government information is handled in a court of law.

 

[TahoeHorn 107]

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/386409-mueller-puts-politics-above-the-law

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,860]

That’s cool. There’s a sucker for every cock.  

[retread 2,951]

Maybe the bldg isn't on fire....

[TahoeHorn 107]

Which one of you guys is Leonard?

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article210497509.html

 

☺️

[hobbes2702 13,468]

Don’t feed the troll

[TahoeHorn 107]

7 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Don’t feed the troll

I don't need an answer.  And it wasn't posted for the benefit of those of you who are Leonard.  It was posted for those on the board who aren't Leonard but know Leonards.

I'm listening to their chuckles.

Edited May 6, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[hobbes2702 13,468]

You’re still a troll

[JimmyJames 12,271]

That was a good article. The olds are afraid of the way America has changed and is changing. Fox News makes a nice profit stoking those fears by the olds.

Trump has tapped into that fear hence we need a wall to keep out the Mexicans, the black president is from Kenya and not legitimate, they’re coming for you guns then you’ll have nothing to protect you from the bleks and other minority hoards, etc, etc, etc. 

chuckle chuckle 

[Pods 7,637]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't need an answer.  And it wasn't posted for the benefit of those of you who are Leonard.  It was posted for those on the board who aren't Leonard but know Leonards.

I'm listening to their chuckles.

Since that was likely directed to me after about a week of me trying to reason with you on morals, I realize my mistake and retract it. 

I've been dealing with a Trump supporter in my own life that actually is a good person. She's starting to come around because of Trump's repeated and shockingly amoral behavior and I mistakenly applied that to you as well. 

I thought I might have still seen some Anakin Skywalker left in you, but I was completely mistaken. You are a small minded toady, like Pepe the Frog, but with warts on his soul. Always have been and always will be. You are a collaborator and have sold all of your values out in furtherance of the GOP. You are Vichy France, but you are worse, because you can leave, but choose not to. 

I also see Sunday has no bearing on your support for this appalling amorality. Hope your preacher is wrong about that whole fire and brimstone thing, but then again, I bet the devil really likes donuts.

Enjoy your chuckles Tahoe. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Pods said:

Since that was likely directed to me ...

It wasn't.  I had no one in particular in mind.  This site is full of Leonards.  I read the article, laughed and posted it for others to laugh.

 

[David Dennison 19,530]

 

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

It wasn't.  I had no one in particular in mind.  This site is full of Leonards.  I read the article, laughed and posted it for others to laugh.

 

What made you laugh?

[Pods 7,637]

9 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

It wasn't.  I had no one in particular in mind.  This site is full of Leonards.  I read the article, laughed and posted it for others to laugh.

 

It was directed at those of us calling you out as the hypocrite you seem to so richly enjoy being. 

[retread 2,951]

I'll bet the Possum Hollow Order of Trump gives out some sort of major award for derailing threads. Maybe a doughnut lapel pin.

Edited May 6, 2018 by retread

[Grade of D as in David 13,255]

1 hour ago, Pods said:

Hope your preacher is wrong about that whole fire and brimstone thing, but then again, I bet the devil really likes donuts.

 

 

Probably preferred to donuts, maybe Fran was onto something.

[Tuco 5,093]

Let's leave Little Debbie out of this sordid ordeal.  She's an American treasure. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein Delivers Remarks at the Anti-Defamation League National Leadership Summit

Washington, DC

 ~ 

Sunday, May 6, 2018

Remarks as prepared for delivery

Thank you, Liz, for that kind introduction.  I am grateful to the Anti-Defamation League’s leaders and members for the invitation to speak. It is a great honor to join you tonight.

When I served as United States Attorney for Maryland, some of our employees were honored by your organization for their work in fighting terrorism and discrimination.  I appreciate your support of law enforcement and your commitment to justice. I know that you are devoted to combating bigotry and discrimination, regardless of political ideology.

I understand that your theme is to “join the good fight.” I know that you do not mean to engage in a literal fight. This organization prizes peace and not combat.

The phrase, “the good fight,” brings to mind a man named Vernon Johns. Johns preceded Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as the minister of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama.

Born in 1892, Reverend Johns was the grandson of slaves.  He opposed segregation and helped build support for the Civil Rights Movement. 

Johns followed his mother’s sage advice: “If you see a good fight, get in it.”

Dr. King followed that guidance in a non-violent way, and the Anti-Defamation League has followed it for more than a century. 

When the ADL started in 1913, Jewish Americans faced discrimination in many aspects of life, including in education and in the workplace.

That was the era of Jewish quotas in the Ivy Leagues.  Jewish people were not welcome in many country clubs and law firms. It was also the era of Leo Frank, a Jewish man kidnapped and lynched in Georgia in 1915.

By confronting hate, the ADL has helped our society to enhance tolerance and reduce discrimination.  After more than a century, the ADL continues to fight the good fight. 

And time and again, the ADL has helped the Department of Justice perform its important duties for the American people. 

For instance, you provide valuable training to law enforcement officers in America and many other countries.  The ADL now trains approximately 15,000 law enforcement officers every year.  Since 1999, more than 130,000 officers have benefited from that program. 

The agencies you train include U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Secret Service, Federal Protective Service, DEA, and FBI. 

The training focuses on the Holocaust perpetrated by Hitler and the German Nazi party. We study the Holocaust not only to understand the depths of depravity that people can perpetrate, but also as a reminder to guard against the risk of moral corruption in our own time. 

The importance of enforcing the rule of law is a central lesson of the Holocaust.

One of the most famous quotations about that era is by German theologian Martin Niemoller. Niemoller failed to speak up against oppression in the 1930s. He then spent seven years in Nazi concentration camps. Niemoller explained that “when they came for me … there was no one [else] left to speak.”

In 1535, the King of England executed Sir Thomas More, history’s greatest martyr for the rule of law. A Catholic who revered the Pope, More refused to take an oath declaring the King the supreme head of the church. In Robert Bolt’s brilliant play about More, “A Man for All Seasons,” More defends the rule of law in an argument with his son-in-law, William Roper.

Roper is angry because More says he would allow even the Devil to benefit from the protection provided by the rule of law.

Roper insists that he would cut down every law, if necessary, to destroy the Devil.

More replies, “Oh?  And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?”

More concludes, “I’d give the Devil the benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

The point is that we must defend the rule of law at all times, even when it is difficult, so it will be there for us when we need it.

One way that the Department of Justice helps to enforce the rule of law and deter discrimination is to prosecute hate crime violations. When victims are attacked because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, there are laws that empower us to respond.

Enforcing those laws is important to President Trump and Attorney General Sessions, and we enforce them aggressively. 

President Trump recognized last August that “[n]o matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.  We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.”

Under Attorney General Sessions, our Department treats hate crimes as violent crimes.  Our Attorney General said that “[n]o person should have to fear being violently attacked because of who they are, what they believe, or how they worship.”

Since January 2017, our Department has pursued hate crimes charges against more than two dozen defendants and obtained 22 convictions. 

The ADL supported the Shepard-Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act a decade ago.  In 2017, the Department of Justice brought the first prosecution under the Act involving a victim targeted because of gender identity.  The defendant pleaded guilty and received a sentence of 49 years in federal prison for the murder of Mercedes Williamson.

In another matter, Attorney General Sessions sent an experienced federal hate crimes lawyer to help prosecute a man charged with murdering a transgender high school student in Iowa.  That case resulted in a life sentence.

Our Department also remains vigilant against anti-Semitic hate crimes.  Those crimes increased 12 percent from 2014 to 2016. 

Three months ago, we indicted a 19-year-old dual American-Israeli citizen for allegedly calling in bomb threats and active shooter threats to Jewish Community Centers and other Jewish organizations around the country.

Anti-Muslim hate crimes doubled from 2014 to 2016.  We are aggressively investigating and prosecuting those cases, as well.

Last month, the Department secured convictions of three men who attempted to bomb a Kansas apartment building with a mosque used by Somali Muslims.  The defendants held meetings to plan the attack and took significant steps toward implementing their plan, including making and testing explosives.

Thanks to a confidential source, the FBI prevented the attack, and we are holding the suspects accountable.

It is important to collect accurate data so that we understand the scope of hate crimes. Last year, the FBI trained nearly 900 law enforcement agencies about hate crime data collection.  Within the next three years, the FBI plans to consolidate all crime reporting in a single interface that includes hate crimes.

We are also working closely with state and local authorities to prevent hate crimes. The FBI’s Civil Rights Unit developed a hate crime-training program for law enforcement agencies and community organizations around the country.

Our Department also combats discrimination in other ways.

Last year, our Civil Rights Division resolved discrimination cases involving mosques in Michigan, New Jersey, and Illinois, under the zoning provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).  That civil rights law prohibits the use of zoning regulations in a discriminatory or unduly burdensome manner against places of worship and other religious institutions.  We have ten ongoing investigations regarding discrimination against mosques and synagogues.

The ADL is proactive in ensuring that the rights of all religious communities to build, buy or rent places of worship are protected.  The ADL founded the Interfaith Coalition on Mosques, a diverse group that files legal briefs in cases around the country. 

One such case involved efforts to build a mosque in Bernards Township, New Jersey. A group purchased a property in a location that permitted places of worship, but the local government still denied approval to build a mosque.

We filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination, and the township eventually settled the case. The ADL supported the mosque by filing an amicus brief. 

Combating human trafficking is another important initiative of our Department. Last year, we convicted nearly 500 defendants for human trafficking, a grave offense against human dignity and human rights.  We have convicted labor traffickers for exploiting Guatemalan minors and young adults at an Ohio egg farm. The perpetrators lured the victims with false promises of good jobs and education, then required them to work long hours in grueling conditions, for little or no pay. 

The victims were housed in overcrowded, unsanitary trailers, and their families were threatened with harm if they did not comply. 

In another case last month, we secured a 33-year sentence against a sex trafficker who lured young women and girls after falsely promising them careers in the entertainment industry. The defendant then compelled them to engage in prostitution.

The Department of Justice fully supports the men and women of law enforcement.  The overwhelming majority of them are courageous and honorable public servants.  But in those occasional instances where police officers violate their oaths, our Department holds them accountable. 

For example, we obtained a 20-year sentence for a South Carolina police officer who unlawfully shot and killed an African-American man named Walter Scott. 

In Maryland, federal agents and prosecutors recently convicted eight members of a rogue Baltimore police unit on federal charges for a scheme that included conducting illegal searches, robbing drug dealers, making fraudulent overtime claims, and engaging in a cover up.

In another Maryland case, we recently prosecuted 18 correctional officers for a range of crimes both with and against inmates, including civil rights violations.

Our Department does not rest on its laurels.  We know that there is a lot of work for us to do. 

In 2017, the Department’s Civil Rights Division conducted a four-day intensive hate crime-training program for federal prosecutors.  We will hold more such events in the future, and we welcome your help.

There will be additional opportunities for the ADL and the Department to work together, and I look forward to seeing those collaborations develop. 

When hate crimes are committed, we will bring the full force of the law against the defendant.  When rights have been violated, the Department of Justice will pursue appropriate remedies.

The rule of law is fundamental to justice. That is why government employees are required to take an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

President Abraham Lincoln spoke about the oath of office in his first inaugural address. When Lincoln took office in 1861, slave states had already started to secede from the Union. Lincoln explained in his address that after swearing an oath to defend the government, he could never accept its dissolution.

Lincoln’s primary concern was about geography: the unity of the American states.

But Lincoln also spoke about another type of unity: the unity of the American people.

His words resonate today. Partisan differences are exacerbated by the media. Opposing parties are at war, figuratively. But in Lincoln’s time, people were literally at war. The differences of opinion then were deeper than any of ours today.

Still, Lincoln insisted that his opponents not be treated as enemies, because they were all Americans.

Lincoln said that “[w]e are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”

Lincoln invoked the “mystic chords of memory” that tie Americans together, and he concluded his inaugural address by appealing to “the better angels of our nature.”

President Trump echoed that sentiment with his remarks last summer: “We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.”

A shared commitment to the pursuit of justice under the rule of law is the central bond that ties Americans together.

In 1951, 90 years after Lincoln’s address, Judge Learned Hand said that “f we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment.  Thou shalt not ration justice.”

At the Department of Justice, our 115,000 employees work tirelessly to faithfully discharge their duties. Priorities change, but our commitment to justice is timeless.

One of my favorite quotations about justice is inscribed in a frame from my parents that hangs on my office wall. It is from the Book of Deuteronomy, a collection of sermons that the Bible tells us were delivered by Moses before his people entered the promised land, after escaping from Egypt and wandering in the desert for 40 years.

Moses ordered the former slaves to appoint judges throughout the land. Their instructions are to judge fairly, to show no partiality, and to take no bribes. The goal, as it is written, is a simple one: “You must pursue justice, and only justice, so that you may live and thrive in the land that God has given to you.” The word justice appears twice. It is not a typographical error. It is a point of emphasis.

So please keep on pursuing justice. And try not to fight. But if you need to join a fight, make sure that it’s a “good fight.”

Thank you very much.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

 

[kevwun 16,437]

Speculation is a very odd choice of words.  Sounds more like he thinks that Mueller can't prove it, not that it didn't happen.

[triplehorn 2,664]

From last week, this is a good listen of DAG Rod Rosenstein speaking in commemoration of Law Day at the Freedom Forum Institute.  The first 10 minutes reveal his background and how his values that inform his work at DoJ were forged.

At the 18:00 mark he gives a very informative explanation in response to the question: 

"How do you go about balancing the Department's need for confidential investigations against other Branch demands for information concerning them."

This is, of course, of paramount significance RIGHT NOW because certain GOP in Congress are making threats of holding Sessions in contempt or of impeaching DAG Rosenstein for withholding highly sensitive information in the ongoing Trump/Russia investigation from them.  Rosenstein later remarks that the DoJ "will not be extorted".

 

 

 

[pwinger 35]

6 hours ago, 5 5 said:

Trump's GOP = the Barry Switzer Sooners.

More like Barry Switzer's Cowboys

[David Dennison 19,530]

Tucker knows that Donald Trump appointed the AG, Deputy AG, and FBI Director, right?

[Mdhorn 6,166]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Tucker knows that Donald Trump appointed the AG, Deputy AG, and FBI Director, right?

Doesn't care.  It's all about party over country/logic/science/climate/poors....  

Edited May 8, 2018 by Mdhorn

[WhatTheBuck 28,928]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Tucker knows that Donald Trump appointed the AG, Deputy AG, and FBI Director, right?

Of course. His job isn't to report truth. It's to promote the party line. He's not a reporter, he's a propagandist. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

"A phrase that does not appear in the Post’s article, because the reporters cannot prove it, is “money laundering.” But money laundering is the suspicion hovering over all these curious purchases, and the reason the Post is devoting so many investigative resources to the subject in the first place. “This is all about money laundering,” Steve Bannon told Michael Wolff. “[Mueller’s] path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner … It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit.”

Money laundering would be criminal activity. If you are involved in criminal activity, you are subject to blackmail. And if the criminals who can blackmail you have connections to a foreign government — say, Russia — then that government has blackmail leverage. Ten years ago, Donald Trump Jr. casually said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” And as recently as 2014, Eric Trump told a reporter, “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia,” which is quite different than his current explanation that the Trump Organization does not require outside funding at all."

 

^^^ This is why Manafort's indictments at EDVA should and I expect will proceed under the auspices of Judge Ellis -- they are a direct link to the coordination, money flow, blackmail leverage, and direct influence Putin currently possesses over our POTUS.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I would be shocked if the Trump operation wasn’t laundering Russian money.

[TwiceHorn 32,076]

2 hours ago, triplehorn said:

"A phrase that does not appear in the Post’s article, because the reporters cannot prove it, is “money laundering.” But money laundering is the suspicion hovering over all these curious purchases, and the reason the Post is devoting so many investigative resources to the subject in the first place. “This is all about money laundering,” Steve Bannon told Michael Wolff. “[Mueller’s] path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr. and Jared Kushner … It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit.”

Money laundering would be criminal activity. If you are involved in criminal activity, you are subject to blackmail. And if the criminals who can blackmail you have connections to a foreign government — say, Russia — then that government has blackmail leverage. Ten years ago, Donald Trump Jr. casually said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.” And as recently as 2014, Eric Trump told a reporter, “We don’t rely on American banks. We have all the funding we need out of Russia,” which is quite different than his current explanation that the Trump Organization does not require outside funding at all."

 

^^^ This is why Manafort's indictments at EDVA should and I expect will proceed under the auspices of Judge Ellis -- they are a direct link to the coordination, money flow, blackmail leverage, and direct influence Putin currently possesses over our POTUS.

Just for clarity's sake, the DC case is the money laundering while the Virginia case is tax and bank fraud. And accordingly has even less connection to Russia and Trump, which is probably why Ellis got kinda wound up. 

But I am virtually certain that the Trump organization has been a party  to transactions the primary purpose of which was to launder money. Whether their involvement is culpable or within the statute of limitations I am less certain. 

Edited May 8, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[triplehorn 2,664]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just for clarity's sake, the DC case is the money laundering while the Virginia case is tax and bank fraud. And accordingly has even less connection to Russia and Trump, which is probably why Ellis got kinda wound up. 

But I am virtually certain that the Trump organization has been a party  to transactions the primary purpose of which was to launder money. Whether their involvement is culpable or within the statute of limitations I am less certain. 

You didn't elaborate, but I suppose I take you at your word that 'money laundering' has more to do with Russia than 'tax and bank fraud'.  It seems they are all elements of a complex set of related criminal actions. 

Regarding statute of limitations, I recall reading somewhere that when conspiracy (RICO) charges apply, time limits don't disqualify old crimes from being incorporated into the conspiracy charges, such that Manafort's pre-2016 EDVA crimes may be only a corner of a larger ongoing conspiracy involving as yet unrevealed others.

[TwiceHorn 32,076]

33 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

You didn't elaborate, but I suppose I take you at your word that 'money laundering' has more to do with Russia than 'tax and bank fraud'.  It seems they are all elements of a complex set of related criminal actions. 

Regarding statute of limitations, I recall reading somewhere that when conspiracy (RICO) charges apply, time limits don't disqualify old crimes from being incorporated into the conspiracy charges, such that Manafort's pre-2016 EDVA crimes may be only a corner of a larger ongoing conspiracy involving as yet unrevealed others.

Well in tax fraud the aggrieved party is the government and bank fraud the bank and the beneficiary is the defendant, whereas money laundering can involve several different parties and the beneficiary is often more than the defendant.  There isn't a whole lot of mysterious conspiracy in either bank or tax fraud, by nature it is sort of personal business. In both instances, Manafort misrepresented his worth and income. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

The operative word being 'income.'  The money flows like a river from somewhere, ie off-ledger Ukraine millions from deposed Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych to Manafort, or from straw donors with direct ties to Putin, then later spins off into little individual eddies called bank and tax fraud depending on the handling by those where the money settles.  

The source of the income flow is what will likely be shown to be what ties Manafort's charges and others' criminality to a larger conspiracy involving Russia/pro-Russia Ukrainian entities and the Trump campaign.

[Pods 7,637]

On 5/4/2018 at 4:29 PM, TahoeHorn said:

I totally believe that Vekselberg was stopped at JFK and had his electronic devices imaged.  I have no idea whether that showed anything bad for Trump.  Maybe one day I'll learn what was on those electronic devices and will have an opinion.

Hey Tahoe, remember this conversation a few days ago? Looks like you might get your wish. 

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/robert-mueller-russian-oligarch-payments-michael-cohen/index.html?sr=twCNNp050818robert-mueller-russian-oligarch-payments-michael-cohen0603PMStory&CNNPolitics=Tw

Exclusive: Mueller's team questions Russian oligarch about payments to Cohen

(CNN)Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigators have questioned a Russian oligarch about hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments his company's US affiliate made to President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, after the election, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Viktor Vekselberg, chairman of asset manager Renova Group, is an oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, and last month the Trump administration placed him on a list of sanctioned Russians for activities including election interference. The purpose of the payments, which predate the sanctions, and the nature of the business relationship between Vekselberg and Cohen is unclear.

The scrutiny of the payments could add to the legal troubles for Cohen, whose home and office were raided last month as part of a criminal investigation by federal prosecutors in Manhattan. In court documents, the prosecutors said at least part of their inquiry stemmed from a referral from Mueller's office.

The questions asked of Vekselberg suggest that Mueller investigators have been examining some of Cohen's business relationships as part of the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Vekselberg is one of two Russian oligarchs the FBI stopped earlier this year after their private jets landed in New York-area airports as part of Mueller's investigation.

 

 

Investigators also asked Vekselberg about donations the head of his US affiliate made to Trump's inaugural fund and campaign funds, sources said.

The attorney for Stormy Daniels -- the porn star who received $130,000 to keep quiet about an alleged affair she had with Trump a decade ago -- produced information Tuesday evening that appears to add further details to CNN's reporting. Michael Avenatti alleged that Cohen received half a million dollars from a company affiliated with Vekselberg in the months after the presidential election.

Avenatti alleged the $500,000 went into the bank account for Essential Consultants, a shell company that Cohen set up before the election that was used to pay Daniels. Avenatti added that the payments occurred from January to August 2017.

CNN has reviewed documents that appear to show these payments. CNN has not independently authenticated the documents.

Prosecutors have not accused Cohen of wrongdoing in regard to the payments or any other business dealings.

What FBI agents wanted to know

FBI agents asked Vekselberg about payments his company's American affiliate, Columbus Nova, made to Cohen, according to one source. The Russian was questioned as well about $300,000 in political donations by Andrew Intrater, Vekselberg's American cousin who is the head of Columbus Nova, sources said.

Intrater was also questioned by Mueller's investigators, two sources told CNN. Last month, Vekselberg was placed on the US government's list of sanctioned individuals, prohibiting him from traveling to the US. 

The payments occurred at the same time Cohen was trying to build a consulting and legal business after the election and around the time he left the Trump Organization. At that time, he was still Trump's personal lawyer. Even last month, as Trump responded to questions about the payment to Daniels, the President deferred to Cohen and said, "Michael is my attorney."

In court filings, Cohen's attorney said that Cohen has seven clients for whom he provides "strategic advice and business consulting." The attorney did not specify whether Columbus Nova was one of those clients.

Columbus Nova and Intrater did not respond to requests for comment. An attorney for Vekselberg did not respond to a request for comment, nor did representatives for his company in Russia. Cohen did not respond to a request for comment.

Prosecutors with the US attorney's office in Manhattan are investigating Cohen's personal financial dealings, including his taxi business and payments made to silence Daniels, sources have told CNN. The FBI raided Cohen's home, office and hotel room last month, seizing at least eight boxes of documents and more than a dozen electronic devices. Cohen's attorney said the inquiry was referred by Mueller's team.

Campaign donations under scrutiny

Vekselberg's cousin Intrater gave generously to support Trump. 

He donated $250,000 to the Trump inauguration fund, $35,000 to the Trump Victory Fund, and $29,600 to the Republican National Committee in June 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. 

While it is illegal for foreigners to donate to US politics, Intrater is American.

However, the donations were a sharp increase from previous cycles and may raise questions for investigators. Intrater's only previous political donations included $1,200 to Democrat Bill Richardson's presidential run in 2008 and $2,600 in 2014 for Republican Chris Day's congressional race in New York. Renova Group donated between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, but it's not clear when the contribution occurred, according to the foundation's public list of donors.

Vekselberg may also be of interest to investigators because of his close ties to the Kremlin. He built his fortune following the collapse of the Soviet Union through a series of deals in the oil and gas sector. In 2004, he paid over $100 million to buy nine Faberge eggs from the American Forbes family, returning the second-largest collection of imperial eggs to Russia. Six years later, he was appointed by then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev to lead the Skolkovo Innovation Center project, the Kremlin's answer to Silicon Valley.

From 2007 until March 2012, Vekselberg was a shareholder and chairman of the board of Rusal, the aluminum company controlled by Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska has business ties to former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who has been indicted on fraud and tax related charges as part of Mueller's investigation. Manafort has pleaded not guilty. Deripaska, who also was added to the US sanctions list last month, has sued Manafort over a soured investment deal.

Lamesa Investments Ltd, an affiliate of Renova, acquired a large stake in the Bank of Cyprus at the same time Wilbur Ross, then a private equity investor, made a capital infusion into the then-struggling bank. Lamesa now holds a 9.2% stake in the Bank of Cyprus. Ross resigned from his position as vice chairman of the bank after he was confirmed as Trump's commerce secretary. 

Vekselberg also attended the December 2015 dinner in Moscow for RT, the state-controlled television channel, where Michael Flynn, Trump's former national security adviser, sat beside Putin, according to NBC News. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying about a call he had with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation. 

Vekselberg attended Trump's inauguration ceremony as a guest of "one of his closest American business partners," Renova spokesman Andrey Shtorkh told The Washington Post. The New York Times reported that Intrater gave Vekselberg the ticket.

[triplehorn 2,664]

Another example which could just as easily apply to the Cohen thread:

 

[dOUblewide 101]

13 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

The operative word being 'income.'  The money flows like a river from somewhere, ie off-ledger Ukraine millions from deposed Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych to Manafort, or from straw donors with direct ties to Putin, then later spins off into little individual eddies called bank and tax fraud depending on the handling by those where the money settles.  

The source of the income flow is what will likely be shown to be what ties Manafort's charges and others' criminality to a larger conspiracy involving Russia/pro-Russia Ukrainian entities and the Trump campaign.

Hey bro...what happened to your POTUS Hatch theory? 

Member when Hatch was getting those briefings back around April 2017 b/c something was about to happen "soon". 

Iol

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 minute ago, dOUblewide said:

Hey bro...what happened to your POTUS Hatch theory? 

Member when Hatch was getting those briefings back around April 2017 b/c something was about to happen "soon". 

Iol

What makes you think he didnt bro? lol.  In the time since, he decided to quit.  Who predicted that ?  shit happens.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, dOUblewide said:

Hey bro...what happened to your POTUS Hatch theory? 

Member when Hatch was getting those briefings back around April 2017 b/c something was about to happen "soon". 

Iol

Just goes to show how full of shit Mensch is sometimes...er ah, most of the time.

I think Mensch was/is a counter propaganda operation to scare the shit out of the Russians who buy into as much disinformation as they dish out.

[Fozzz 152]

So the rub is that Novartis and AT&T funneled money to Cohen for access to Trump?  Isn't that perfectly legal?

[David Dennison 19,530]

So a Russian oligarch was funding our president's hired fixer.

I can't say I'm surprised.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Just now, David Dennison said:

So a Russian oligarch was funding our president's hired fixer.

I can't say I'm surprised.

NO COLLUSION!

[triplehorn 2,664]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Just goes to show how full of shit Mensch is sometimes...er ah, most of the time.

I think Mensch was/is a counter propaganda operation to scare the shit out of the Russians who buy into as much disinformation as they dish out.

I cringe a little typing this because her personality grates me, but in the substantive Trump/Russia matters she was the tip of the spear for many months in reporting before MSM started to wake up.  She's batting way over .500.  There remain major stories she broke that remain to be scored, but her body of reporting over the past 1.5 years continues to hold form.  troof.

 

[triplehorn 2,664]

Burrn.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

3 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

I cringe a little typing this because her personality grates me, but in the substantive Trump/Russia matters she was the tip of the spear for many months in reporting before MSM started to wake up.  She's batting way over .500.  There remain major stories she broke that remain to be scored, but her body of reporting over the past 1.5 years continues to hold form.  troof.

 

She toots her own horn way too much which creates a perception she’s batting over .500 but I seriously doubt she’s been that accurate over the past year.

She’s been slightly more correct than her Russian propagandist counterparts and doesn’t account for her egregious errors.  She’s only reliable for providing very unreliable RUMINT. 

I’m not saying she’s worthless but she does an incredible disservice to journalists playing by the rules and being held to an insanely high standard of perfection.

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She toots her own horn way too much which creates a perception she’s batting over .500 but I seriously doubt she’s been that accurate over the past year.

She’s been slightly more correct than her Russian propagandist counterparts and doesn’t account for her egregious errors.  She’s only reliable for providing very unreliable RUMINT. 

I’m not saying she’s worthless but she does an incredible disservice to journalists playing by the rules and being held to an insanely high standard of perfection.

"I’m not saying she’s worthless but she does an incredible disservice to journalists playing by the rules and being held to an insanely high standard of perfection."

I laughed.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

I seriously don’t know if she does more good than harm in the grand scheme of things.

[triplehorn 2,664]

Let's do a Mensch post-mortem after the smoke of Trump's ass skidding across prison pavement clears.  Otherwise, too soon.