Department of Justice inspector general opens investigation into attempts to collect data on Democratic lawmakers’ phones


On Tuesday, the Ministry of Justice made it clear that this is the case Still in the corner of Donald Trump When it comes to a defamation suit brought before E. Jane Carroll, who accused Trump of rape. This lawsuit presumes that Trump’s claim that he never met the writer, and that her accusations were merely “attempting to sell a new book” appears to have nothing to do with Trump’s official duties. Nor his claim that Carroll is “not my type.” However, the Department of Justice defends Trump asserting that “Speaking to the public and the press on matters of public concern is undoubtedly part of the elected official’s job, a position that appears to allow Trump to defame private citizens at will. It is an argument that a federal judge has already emphatically denied, but the Department of Justice continues to support Trump in an appeal This decision.

This was just one of a series of decisions Garland made — including refusing to file memos outlining how Bill Barr justified his failure to charge Trump with obstruction, and keeping former US attorney John Durham on board as special prosecutor in a seemingly never-ending investigation She has basic principles – she has a lot smoke Because of his apparent refusal to make necessary course corrections after Jefferson Sessions and Bill Barr turned the Department of Justice into a special investigation and persecution service for Trump.

It didn’t help on Friday when Washington Post She stated that the Department of Justice will continue to fight subpoenas trying to obtain records from the Trump Hotel in Washington. Trump rents the building from the federal government, but despite hearings, subpoenas, and a lawsuit, House committees have been unable to obtain the records they request. The Department of Justice is now appealing a ruling that records must be filed, compounding the appearance that even from Mar-a-Lago, Trump still maintains the agency as his law firm.

However, expectations are that Garland will announce revisions to Justice Department policy when it comes to searching for the records of the reporters involved in the leaks. The scope of such investigations was drastically curtailed in 2013 — a fact that Sessions and Barr routinely ignored while mired in Trump’s enduring paranoia about the leaks. Politico He also notes that Garland is expected to speak on Friday afternoon to confirm the Justice Department’s position in favor of voting rights — a statement that could precede legal action against states that have passed, or are trying to pass, restrictive voting laws.

at the same time, announce bar He “doesn’t remember” being made aware of attempts to access Democratic lawmakers’ phone records. It’s a statement that seems highly unlikely, as the investigation was moribund in 2017 and revived when Barr took office. However, it is a statement certainly intended by some heavy-duty CYA for Barr, who already testified before the Senate that he was not aware of any investigations being conducted on Trump’s orders.

Despite all efforts, no evidence has ever been found that either Schiff or Swalwell leaked any information. It’s too bad as long as the Justice Department was deciding to monitor an equal branch of government, they didn’t think to look at any Republican members. Because there is definitely at least good filter Who spilled information everywhere.

March 22, 2017 Nunes launches the first of several press conferences in which he declares that he has classified information showing that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Then Nunes returned to Paul Ryan, and then stuck to him second press conference During which it becomes clear that Nunes is revealing confidential information and sharing that information with the people who are supposed to be under investigation by his committee.

that previous report From Inspector General Horowitz considered FISA requests and the origins of the Russian investigation – the same thing Durham has been examining for more than two years now. This report found that the decision to open an investigation into the Trump campaign, and individuals associated with that campaign, was made correctly, despite a number of technical flaws in requests for injunctions under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Like it? Share with your friends!


What's Your Reaction?

hate hate
confused confused
fail fail
fun fun
geeky geeky
love love
lol lol
omg omg
win win


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *