White House lawyer Emmet Flood sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr on April 19 accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of playing politics with his claim that the report “does not exonerate” President Trump on obstruction of justice.
“Because they do not belong in our criminal justice vocabulary, the SCO’s inverted-proof standard and “exoneration” statements can be understood only as political statements, issuing from persons (prosecutors) who in our system of government are rightly expected never to be political in the performance of their duties. The inverted burden of proof knowingly embedded in the SCO’s conclusion shows that the Special Counsel and his staff failed in their duty to act as prosecutors and only as prosecutors.” – Emmett Flood
- The letter goes on to criticize Mueller’s choice not to make a prosecutorial decision on obstruction, which Flood claims does not comply with the obligation imposed by the special counsel’s regulations to “explain the prosecution or declination decisions reached.”
- Flood also addresses the claim by some Democrats that Mueller’s report was meant to be a “road map” for congressional action, including possible impeachment: “If that was in fact the SCO’s intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the SCO’s refusal to follow applicable law. … Under a constitution of separated powers, inferior Article II officers should not be in the business of creating “road maps” for the purpose of transmitting them to Article I committees.”
Read the full letter below:
Paul Plante says
This whole ridiculous saga gets more and more ridiculous as the days go by, and especially since this Mullet Report has been issued as we can clearly see in a Washington Examiner article entitled “Clinton slams Barr: He’s acting as Trump’s defense lawyer, not attorney general” by Zachary Halaschak on 2 May 2019, where we have the very stupid and ignorant Hillary Rodham Clinton, a twice-failed Democrat presidential contender who incidentally has a law degree from Yale, running her mouth to show off just how ignorant she really is, Yale law degree notwithstanding, because a law degree does not make someone intelligent, and in my experience of the trade, you be as dumb as a box of rocks and still be a lawyer, the standards are that low, as follows:
Hillary Clinton attacked Attorney General William Barr after his Wednesday testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In an MSNBC interview, Clinton said that Barr’s conduct regarding special counsel Robert Mueller’s report was not professional, and she thinks Barr is working for Trump rather than for the people.
end quotes
The very last person we should be depending on for a treatise on Barr’s conduct as attorney general is an ignoramus like Hillary Clinton, who does not know the meaning of the word “professional,” and she thinks Barr is working for trump rather than the people because Hillary is simply incapable of thought, period.
What is this bull**** about Barr working “for the people?”
What people?
The U.S. attorney general is not our lawyer, and you would think that somebody as smart as Hillary Clinton would know that, and if you did think that, how wrong you would be.
As to the duties and responsibilities of the U.S. attorney general, a better source of information would be from the Department of Justice itself, where we have as follows:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Organization, Mission & Functions Manual: Attorney General, Deputy and Associate
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.
In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice.”
This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States.
The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:
• Represent the United States in legal matters.
• Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
• Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
• Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
• Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
• Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.
end quotes
Nowhere in there does it say that the Attorney General is the “people’s lawyer,” as ditzy (silly or scatterbrained; foolish, giddy, lightheaded, featherbrained, harebrained, empty-headed, vacuous, stupid, brainless) Hillary Clinton (no wonder she is such a loser) would have us believe, and what it does say in there is that the Attorney General furnishes advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
MEMO TO SILLY HILLARY: The Congress is not an executive department or agency of the United States, nor are the “people.”
Getting back to Hillary’s display of just how ignorant she really is in the 2 May 2019 Washington Examiner, we have:
“I think that the Democrats on the committee did a good job today in exposing that he is the president’s defense lawyer, he is not the attorney general of the United States,” she said.
end quotes
Okay, right, right, whatever you say, Hillary, you tiresome ignorant A-HOLE!
Hillary, of course, has a long history of talking stupid, but that statement of hers on May 2d that she thought that the Democrats on the committee did a good job today in exposing that Barr is not the attorney general of the United States has to be at or near the top, because Barr was approved by the Senate (Hillary actually was a United States Senator from NY, if you can believe that) for the position of attorney general, so he is in fact the attorney general, regardless of what a bunch of REAL STUPID DEMOCRATS in the house of representatives might think about it, and that brings us back in time to Tuesday, February 12, 1788, and FEDERALIST No. 53 by either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, entitled “The House of Representatives,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York, where we have as follows:
No man can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate.
end quote
There they are talking about all these WORTHLESS DEMOCRATS that silly Hillary says proved that Barr isn’t really the Attorney General, even though he really is the Attorney general.
And that takes us to FEDERALIST No. 62, “The Senate,” again by either Hamilton or Madison, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, as follows:
It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.
end quotes
And there again, they are talking specifically about these WORTHLESS DEMOCRATS to include, “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, Elijah “The Prophet Who Roars” Cummings and little Adam Schiff from sunny Burbank, California, which takes us back to Federalist No. 62 as follows:
In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government.
It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.
This is a precaution founded on such clear principles, and now so well understood in the United States, that it would be more than superfluous to enlarge on it.
The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.
end quotes
And that again is a direct reference to the DEMOCRATS in the house of representatives who are making a mockery of our national government.
And that takes us to Tuesday, March 18, 1788, and FEDERALIST No. 71 by Alexander Hamilton, entitled “The Duration in Office of the Executive,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York, as follows:
But however inclined we might be to insist upon an unbounded complaisance in the Executive to the inclinations of the people, we can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the legislature.
end quotes
Ah, yes, people, the “humors” of the legislature!
What idiots!
Getting back to Federalist No. 71:
The latter may sometimes stand in opposition to the former, and at other times the people may be entirely neutral.
In either supposition, it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision.
The same rule which teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us likewise that this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other.
To what purpose separate the executive or the judiciary from the legislative, if both the executive and the judiciary are so constituted as to be at the absolute devotion of the legislative?
It is one thing to be subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent on the legislative body.
The first comports with, the last violates, the fundamental principles of good government; and, whatever may be the forms of the Constitution, unites all power in the same hands.
The tendency of the legislative authority to absorb every other, has been fully displayed and illustrated by examples in some preceding numbers.
In governments purely republican, this tendency is almost irresistible.
The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.
They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
end quotes
And again, there he is talking about today and the Democrats in the House of Representatives, who would not know America or its laws or history if the stupid fools tripped and fell over them, which takes us to Friday, March 21, 1788 and FEDERALIST No. 73, “The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power,” by Alexander Hamilton, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York, as follows:
THE third ingredient towards constituting the vigor of the executive authority, is an adequate provision for its support.
It is evident that, without proper attention to this article, the separation of the executive from the legislative department would be merely nominal and nugatory.
The last of the requisites to energy, which have been enumerated, are competent powers.
Let us proceed to consider those which are proposed to be vested in the President of the United States.
The first thing that offers itself to our observation, is the qualified negative of the President upon the acts or resolutions of the two houses of the legislature; or, in other words, his power of returning all bills with objections, to have the effect of preventing their becoming laws, unless they should afterwards be ratified by two thirds of each of the component members of the legislative body.
The propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments, has been already suggested and repeated; the insufficiency of a mere parchment delineation of the boundaries of each, has also been remarked upon; and the necessity of furnishing each with constitutional arms for its own defense, has been inferred and proved.
From these clear and indubitable principles results the propriety of a negative, either absolute or qualified, in the Executive, upon the acts of the legislative branches.
Without the one or the other, the former would be absolutely unable to defend himself against the depredations of the latter.
He might gradually be stripped of his authorities by successive resolutions, or annihilated by a single vote.
And in the one mode or the other, the legislative and executive powers might speedily come to be blended in the same hands.
If even no propensity had ever discovered itself in the legislative body to invade the rights of the Executive, the rules of just reasoning and theoretic propriety would of themselves teach us, that the one ought not to be left to the mercy of the other, but ought to possess a constitutional and effectual power of self defense.
But the power in question has a further use.
It not only serves as a shield to the Executive, but it furnishes an additional security against the enaction of improper laws.
It establishes a salutary check upon the legislative body, calculated to guard the community against the effects of faction, precipitancy, or of any impulse unfriendly to the public good, which may happen to influence a majority of that body.
The propriety of a negative has, upon some occasions, been combated by an observation, that it was not to be presumed a single man would possess more virtue and wisdom than a number of men; and that unless this presumption should be entertained, it would be improper to give the executive magistrate any species of control over the legislative body.
But this observation, when examined, will appear rather specious than solid.
The propriety of the thing does not turn upon the supposition of superior wisdom or virtue in the Executive, but upon the supposition that the legislature will not be infallible; that the love of power may sometimes betray it into a disposition to encroach upon the rights of other members of the government; that a spirit of faction may sometimes pervert its deliberations; that impressions of the moment may sometimes hurry it into measures which itself, on mature reflexion, would condemn.
The primary inducement to conferring the power in question upon the Executive is, to enable him to defend himself; the secondary one is to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertence, or design.
end quotes
So what side are you on, people of America?
The side of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND ORDER?
Or the side of the idiot Democrats?
Jack Trump says
Mueller has exposed himself to be one of the lily pads on the surface of the swamp. It’s hard to believe his reputation, with all the questionable work he’s done, somehow positively preceded him into The Russia Hoax. Then again, D.C. is a swamp. Be that as it may, it’s obvious he decided to leave plenty of wiggle room for critics of the president. He did it on purpose. HOWEVER the fact of the matter is that his job to discover and then recommend indict, or not. When he decided to be unprofessional and not sum up his work properly and make a direct statement, that showed his true side. As far as the true effect on the investigation, it does not matter. Recommend to indict, or don’t. Lack of recommendation for indictment speaks for itself.