Re: Re:

Can you please send me WSJ op Ed. Tx

Sent from my iPhone

Mueller's Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

It makes no difference ho= honorable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended i=s origin in 2016.

By

Elizabeth Price Fo=ey

June 2=, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET

414 COMMENTS<=u>

Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation may face = serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The J=ne 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking =fficials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communicati=ns, the report says, were "not only indicative of a biased state o= mind but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects."=Although Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias =E2fldirectly affected" specific FBI actions in the Hillary Cli=ton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.=u>

Crossfire was launched only months before the 2016 election. Its=FBI progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton40=804,deployed at least one informant to probe Trump campaign advisers, obtained Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court wiretap warrant=, issued national security letters to gather records, and unmasked the ide=tities of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly lea=ed investigative information.

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn4,=99t expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI=officials displayed not merely an appearance of bias against Donald Trump, but animus bordering on hatred. Peter Strzok, who le= both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleag=e's fear that Mr. Trump would become president: "No he won=E2nt. We'll stop it." An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was "devastated" and Q=804,numb" after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI att=rney: "Viva le resistance."

The report highlights the FBI's failure to act promptly =pon discovering that Anthony Weiner's laptop contained thousands o= Mrs. Clinton's emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the "higher priority" of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowit= writes: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decisio= to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on Ethel investi=ative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias."=/u>

Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI=Director James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did m=ke decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the=Clinton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assum=d presidency's legitimacy.

The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok's text messa=es "created the appearance that investigative decisions were impac=ed by bias or improper considerations." The report adds, important=y, that "most of the text messages raising such questions pertained t= the Russia investigation." Given how biases ineluctably shape beh=vior, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton=investigation and building a narrative of

Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clinton=E2ns electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an in=urance policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of ille=itimacy.

What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in=May 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general conc=udes that the pervasive bias "cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,Q=9D including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then i=s culmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. =11 special-counsel activities— investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fr=it of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr.=Mueller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire's origin of=ers no cure.

When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or proper=y, it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court h=s made clear that when governmental action "shocks the conscience," it violates due process. Such con=uct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the=totality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entr=pment.

In U.S. v. Russell4=A0(1973), the justices observed: "We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageou= that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invo=ing judicial processes to obtain a conviction." It didn't =ake long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was=offended by a prosecutor's "realistic likelihood of 4>=98vindictiveness' " that tainted the "very in=tiation of proceedings."

In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton=C2*(1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have "power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutiniz=ng any given individual ... we must have assurance that those who would =ield this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibil=ty for the attainment of justice." Prosecutors must be "disinterested" and make "dispassionate as=essments," free from any personal bias.

In Williams v. Pennsylvania=/em> (2016), the court held that a state judge's potential bi=s violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earli=r, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was=hearing. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the =aint but heighten "the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be o=scured," the justices wrote. A single biased individual "m=ght still have an influence that, while not so visible ... is =evertheless significant."

In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the=inspector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including=personnel, timing, methods and the absence of evidence—that Crossfire was initiated for political, not national-security, purposes.=/u>

It was initiated in defiance of a longstanding Justice Departmen= presumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And whil= impartiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is t>=80,particularly important in an election year," and "pol=tics must play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investig=tors regarding any investigations. ... Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative step= or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the=purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or politic=l party."

Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the =ase with the bureau's investigation of Mrs. Clinton's priv=te email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counter=ntelligence investigation predicated on the notion that Trump-Russia Russia could collusion be co=luding at the time with Crossfire the Trump was launched, campaign. further There appears reinforcing to have the notion been no that discernible it=was initiated =vidence "for of the purpose" of affecting the president=al election.

Here it is.

Sent from my iPhone

Big deal

maybe, but southern district . money la=ndering. . any action that "offends the constitution &quo=; . corrupt intent.. . m=ny open questions. . flippers will dictate ( my view )