Can you please send me WSJ op Ed. Tx

Sent from my iPhone

Mueller's Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

It makes no difference how honorable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its origin in 2016.

By

David B. Rivkin Jr. and

Elizabeth Price Foley

June 22, 2018 6:38 p.m. ET

414 COMMENTS

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation may face a serious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 14 report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communications, the report says, were “not only indicative of a biased state of 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 “directly affected” specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, it nonetheless affects the legality of the Trump-Russia collusion inquiry, code-named Crossfire Hurricane.

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

Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn’t 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 led both the Clinton and Trump investigations, confidently assuaged a colleague’s fear that Mr. Trump would become president: “No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was “devastated” and “numb” after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorney: “Viva le resistance.”

The report highlights the FBI’s failure to act promptly upon discovering that Anthony Weiner’s laptop contained thousands of Mrs. Clinton’s emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the “higher priority” of Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz writes: “We did not have confidence that Strzok’s decision to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on [the] investigative lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.”

---

Best,

Andrew

Andrew Grossman
Partner

Washington Square
1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. | Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20036-5304

Here it is.

Sent from my iPhone

i htink weak thoughts?

Big deal

exactly my view. on facebook I thought you might look at the recent internet and privacy opinions and pose some open questions. to be discussed mark wants to bring the internet to the rest of the world.. and healthcare.. his wife is nice but boring.. what do you see as the challegnes what does she or he see.

social

Yawn. And David Rivkin is a hack. Zero — and I mean zero — chance that a court would find a due process violation on these facts. Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply.