EFTA02549762.pdf

From: Kathy Ruemmler Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2018 5:12 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Yawn. And David Rivki= is a hack. Zero — and I mean zero — chance that a co=rt would find a due process violation on these facts. Fruit of the po=sonous tree doctrine does not apply. On Jun 23, 2018, a= 12:01 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacat=on@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com» wrote: i htink weak thoughts? jeevacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail=com> " <jeevacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com=» Big deal Begin forwarded message: Resent-From: From: "Rivkin, David" Date: June 23, 2018 at 8:14:49 AM EDT To: Steve Bannon Subject: Fwd: Re: Here it is. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Grossman, Andrew M" Date: June 23, 2018 at 12:56:55 AM EDT EFTA_R1_01705135 EFTA02549762  To: "Rivkin, David Subject: Re: Mueller's Fruit of the Poisonous Tree It makes no difference how h=norable he is. His investigation is tainted by the bias that attended its o=igin in 2016. &=bsp; By David B. Rivkin Jr.</=pan> and <=u> Elizabeth Price Foley=/span> June 22,=2018 6:38 p.m. ET 414 COMMENTS Special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation may face a s=rious legal obstacle: It is tainted by antecedent political bias. The June 1= report from Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department's inspector general, unearthed a pattern of anti-Trump bias by high-ranking o=ficials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Some of their communication=, the report says, were "not only indicative of a biased state of m=nd but imply a willingness to take action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects." A=though Mr. Horowitz could not definitively ascertain whether this bias 4>=9Cdirectly affected" specific FBI actions in the Hillary Clinton em=il 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 FB= progenitors—the same ones who had investigated Mrs. Clinton—=eployed 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 ident=ties of campaign officials who were surveilled. They also repeatedly leaked=investigative information. Mr. Horowitz is separately scrutinizing Crossfire and isn'= expected to finish for months. But the current report reveals that FBI off=cials 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=E241)4os fear that Mr. Trump would become president: "No he wont8040t. We'll stop it." An unnamed FBI lawyer assigned to Crossfire told a colleague he was "devastated" and 4,=9Cnumb" after Mr. Trump won, while declaring to another FBI attorne=: "Viva le resistance." The report highlights the FBI's failure to act promptly up=n discovering that Anthony Weiner's laptop contained thousands of M=s. Clinton's emails. Investigators justified the delay by citing the "higher priority" of 2 EFTA_R1_01705136 EFTA02549763 Crossfire. But Mr. Horowitz=writes: "We did not have confidence that Strzok's decision t= prioritize the Russia investigation over following up on Ethel investigati=e lead discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias."<=> Similarly, although Mr. Horowitz found no evidence that then-FBI D=rector James Comey was trying to influence the election, Mr. Comey did make=decisions based on political considerations. He told the inspector general that his election-eve decision to reopen the C=inton email investigation was motivated by a desire to protect her assumed p=esidency's legitimacy. The inspector general wrote that Mr. Strzok's text message= "created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted=by bias or improper considerations." The report adds, importantly, that "most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to=the Russia investigation." Given how biases ineluctably shape behav=or, these facts create a strong inference that by squelching the Clinton in=estigation and building a narrative of Trump-Russia collusion, a group of government officials sought to bolster Mrs. Clintont=804es electoral chances and, if the unthinkable happened, obtain an insura=ce policy to cripple the Trump administration with accusations of illegitim=cy. What does this have to do with Mr. Mueller, who was appointed in M=y 2017 after President Trump fired Mr. Comey? The inspector general conclud=s that the pervasive bias "cast a cloud over the FBI investigations to which these employees were assigned,"=including Crossfire. And if Crossfire was politically motivated, then its c=lmination, the appointment of a special counsel, inherited the taint. All s=ecial-counsel activities— investigations, plea deals, subpoenas, reports, indictments and convictions—are fru=t of a poisonous tree, byproducts of a violation of due process. That Mr. M=eller and his staff had nothing to do with Crossfire's origin offer= no cure. When the government deprives a person of life, liberty or property= it is required to use fundamentally fair processes. The Supreme Court has m=de clear that when governmental action "shocks the conscience," it violates due process. Such cond=ct includes investigative or prosecutorial efforts that appear, under the t=tality of the circumstances, to be motivated by corruption, bias or entrapm=nt. In U.S. v. Russell (19=3), the justices observed: "We may someday be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous=that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoki=g judicial processes to obtain a conviction." It didn't tak= long. In Blackledge v. Perry (1974), the court concluded that due process was o=fended by a prosecutor's "realistic likelihood of '=indictiveness " that tainted the "very initia=ion of proceedings." In Young v. U.S. ex rel. Vuitton =/span>(1987), the justices held that because prosecutors have "power to employ the full machinery of the state in scrutinizi=g any given individual . . . we must have assurance that those who would wi=ld this power will be guided solely by their sense of public responsibility=for the attainment of justice." Prosecutors must be "disinterested" and make "dispassionate ass=ssments," free from any personal bias. In Williams v. Pennsylvania=nbsp;(2016), the court held that a state judge's potential bias violated due process because he had played a role, a quarter-century earlie=, in prosecuting the death-row inmate whose habeas corpus petition he was h=aring. The passage of time and involvement of others do not vitiate the tai=t but heighten "the need for objective rules preventing the operation of bias that might otherwise be ob=cured," the justices wrote. A single biased individual "mig=t still have an influence that, while not so visible . . . is nev=rtheless significant." In addition to the numerous anti-Trump messages uncovered by the i=spector general, there is a strong circumstantial case—including pe=sonnel, 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 Department p=esumption against investigating campaigns in an election year. And while im=artiality is always required, a 2012 memo by then-Attorney General Eric Holder emphasizes that impartiality is 40=9Cparticularly important in an election year," and "politic= must 3 EFTA_R1_01705137 EFTA02549764 play no role in the decisions of federal prosecutors or investigators-regarding any investigations. . . . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors may never select the timing of investigative steps=or criminal charges for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the p=rpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political p=rty." Strong evidence of a crime can overcome this policy, as was the ca=e with the bureau's investigation of Mrs. Clinton's private=email server, which began more than a year before the 2016 election. But Crossfire was not a criminal investigation. It was a counteri=telligence investigation predicated on the notion that Russia could be coll=ding with the Trump campaign. There appears to have been no discernible evi=ence of Trump-Russia collusion at the time Crossfire was launched, further reinforcing the notion that it w=s initiated "for the purpose" of affecting the presidential=election. The chief evidence of collusion is the hacking of the Democratic N=tional Committee's servers. But nothing in the public record sugges=s the Trump campaign aided that effort. The collusion narrative therefore hinges on the more generic assertion that Russia aimed t= help Mr. Trump's election, and that the Trump campaign reciprocate= by embracing pro-Russian policies. Yet despite massive surveillance and in=estigation, there's still no public evidence of any such exchange —only that Russia attempted to sow pol=tical discord by undermining Mrs. Clinton and to a lesser extent Mr. Trump.=u> Some members of the Trump team interacted with Russians and advoca=ed dovish policies. But so did numerous American political and academic eli=es, including many Clinton advisers. Presidential campaigns routinely seek opposition research and interact with foreign powe=s. The Clinton campaign funded the Steele dossier, whose British author pai= Russians to dish anti-Trump dirt. The Podesta Group, led by the brother of=Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman, received millions lobbying for Russia's largest bank and the Europe=n Center for a Modern Ukraine, both with deep Kremlin ties. The Clinton Fou=dation and Bill Clinton took millions from Kremlin-connected businesses.=/u> No evidence has emerged of Trump-Russia collusion, and Mr. Mueller=has yet to bring collusion- related charges against anyone. Evidence suggest= one of his targets, George Papadopoulos, was lured to London, plied with the prospect of Russian information damagin= to Mrs. Clinton, and taken to dinner, where he drunkenly bragged that heQ=80,d heard about such dirt but never seen it. These circumstances not onl= fail to suggest Mr. Papadopoulos committed a crime, they reek of entrapment. The source of this information, former Au=tralian diplomat Alexander Downer, admits Mr. Papadopolous never mentioned e=ails, destroying any reasonable inference of a connection between the DNC h=ck and the Trump campaign. Crossfire's progenitors thus ignored an obvious question: 1= Russia promised unspecified dirt on Mrs. Clinton but never delivered it, h=w would that amount to collusion with the Trump campaign? If anything, such behavior suggests an attempt to entice and pote=tially embarrass Mr. Trump by dangling the prospect of compromising informa=ion and getting his aides to jump at it. Given the paucity of evidence, it's staggering that the FB= would initiate a counterintelligence investigation, led by politically bia=ed staff, amid a presidential campaign. The aggressive methods and subsequent leaking only strengthen that conclusion. If the FBI s=ncerely believed Trump associates were Russian targets or agents, the prope= response would have been to inform Mr. Trump so that he could protect his c=mpaign and the country. Mr. Trump's critics argue that the claim of political bias=is belied by the fact that Crossfire was not leaked before the election. In=fact, there were vigorous, successful pre-election efforts to publicize the Trump- Russia collusion narrative. Shortly after Cr=ssfire's launch, CIA Director John Brennan and Mr. Comey briefed Co=gress, triggering predictable leaking. Christopher Steele and his patrons e=barked on a media roadshow, making their dossier something of an open secret in Washington. 4 EFTA_R1_01705138 EFTA02549765  On Aug. 29, 2016, the New York Times published a letter to Mr. Com=y from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, saying he'd learned of .=804>evidence of a direct connection between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign," which=had "employed a number of individuals with significant and disturbi=g ties to Russia and the Kremlin." On Aug. 30, the ranking Democrat=c members of four House committees wrote a public letter to Mr. Comey requesting "that the FBI assess whether connections betwe=n Trump campaign officials and Russian interests" may have contribu=ed to the DNC hack so as "to interfere with the U.S. presidential e=ection." On Sept. 23, Yahoo News's Michael Isikoff reported= the Hill briefings and the Steele dossier's allegations regarding C=rter Page. On Oct. 30, Harry Reid again publicly wrote Mr. Comey: "=n my communications with you and other top officials in the national securi=y community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trum=, his top advisors, and the Russian government." That these leaking efforts failed to prevent Mr. Trump's v=ctory, or that Mr. Comey's ham-fisted interventions might have also=hurt Mrs. Clinton's electoral prospects, does not diminish the legal significance of the anti-Trump bias shown by government officials= The totality of the circumstances creates the appearance that Cros=fire was politically motivated. Since an attempt by federal law enforcement=to influence a presidential election "shocks the conscience," any prosecutorial effort derived from such an outr=geous abuse of power must be suppressed. The public will learn more once th= inspector general finishes his investigation into Crossfire's gene=is. But given what is now known, due process demands, at a minimum, that the special counsel's activity be pause=. Those affected by Mr. Mueller's investigation could litigate such=an argument in court. One would hope, however, that given the facts either M=. Mueller himself or Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would do it first. Mr. Rivkin and Ms. Fol=y practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. He served at the=Justice Department and the White House Counsel's Office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrat=ons. She is a professor at Florida International University College of Law.=/span> Appeared in the June 23, 2018, print edition. &=bsp; Best, Andrew Washington Square 1050 Connecticut Ave, N.W. I Suite=1100 <https://maps.gorgle.com/?q=1050+Connecticut+Ave,+N.W.+%7C+Suite+1100+%0D%0A+Washington,+D=+20036&entr y=gmail&source=g> 5 EFTA_R1_01705139 EFTA02549766 Washington, DC 20036 <https://maps.gorgle.com/?q=1050+Connecticut+Ave,+N.W.+%7C+Suite+1100+%0D%0A+Washington,+Dr+20036&entr y=gmail&source=g> -5304 T +1.202.861.1697 agrossman@ba=erlaw.com <mailto:agrossma=@bakerlaw.com> bakerlaw.com <http://www.bake=law.comk =span style="font-size:9.0ptfont-family:"Arial",sans-seritcolo=10000e9;text-decoration:none"><image002.png> <http://www.b=kerlaw.com/FindLawyers.aspx?Lookup_By_Email=agrossman> <image004.png><=p> From:="Rivkin, David" <=drivkin@bakerlaw.=om <mailto:drivkin@bakerlaw.com» Date: Friday, June 22, 2018 at 7:50 PM To: "Grossman, Andrew M" <agrossman@bakerlaw.com <mailto:agrossman@bakerlaw.com= target.» Subject: <no subject> Can you please send me WSJ op Ed. Tx Sent from my iPhone This email is intended only for the use of the party to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately =by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any tax advice in this email is for information purposes only. The content of this email is limited to the matters specifically addressed herein and may not contain a full description of all relevant facts or a complete analysis of all relevant issues or authorities. 6 EFTA_R1_01705140 EFTA02549767 Internet communications are not assured to be secure or clear of inaccuracies as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this email, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. =nbsp; please note The information contained in this communica=ion is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitut= inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. 1= is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of th=s communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be=unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notif= us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com <mailtoleeva=ation@gmail.com> , and destro= this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. c=pyright -all rights reserved 7 EFTA_R1_01705141 EFTA02549768