{"id":75354,"date":"2017-06-15T16:50:56","date_gmt":"2017-06-15T20:50:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=75354"},"modified":"2017-06-15T16:52:13","modified_gmt":"2017-06-15T20:52:13","slug":"mueller-comey-when-former-law-enforcement-officers-team-up-and-go-rogue-presidencies-get-destroyed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/?p=75354","title":{"rendered":"Mueller & Comey: When former law enforcement officers team up and go rogue, presidencies get destroyed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gregg Jarrett: Are Mueller and Comey \u2018colluding\u2019 against Trump by acting as co-special counsel?<\/h1>\n

By Gregg Jarrett
\nFox News<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Comey confesses to leaking<\/p><\/div>\n

Legal Notice<\/u>:\u00a0 \u201cProudly Announcing The Newly-Formed Law Firm of Mueller & Comey.\u00a0 We Specialize In Bungling Cases, Ignoring Legal Standards, And Bringing Down Presidents.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

I have not yet received the announcement in the mail.\u00a0 But I expect it will arrive any day now.<\/p>\n

After all, Robert Mueller and James Comey appear to be acting in concert as co-special counsel.\u00a0 Why not make it official with a formal notice of their union?<\/p>\n

It was obvious it would evolve this way from the very moment Mueller was named on May 17th.<\/p>\n

Which is why I wrote a column<\/a><\/u> two days later, arguing that Mueller should resign as special counsel.\u00a0 He has a flagrant conflict of interest that disqualifies him from serving.\u00a0To wit, his personal and professional closeness to Comey.\u00a0They have long been allies.\u00a0Comey regards his predecessor at the FBI as a mentor, while Mueller considers Comey his prot\u00e9g\u00e9.<\/p>\n

It was evident at the outset that the fired FBI Director would be the pivotal witness in any potential obstruction of justice investigation by Mueller.\u00a0 Therefore, it was incomprehensible that Rod Rosenstein, the Acting Attorney General, would choose him.\u00a0It was equally baffling that Mueller would accept the position.<\/p>\n

I remember reacting to the news with the words, \u201care you kidding?\u201d<\/i>\u00a0 Turns out, it was no joke.<\/p>\n

Conflict of Interest Defined<\/b><\/p>\n

The law governing the special counsel (28 CFR 600.7) specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has a \u201cconflict of interest.\u201d Even the appearance<\/i> of a conflict is disallowed.<\/p>\n

The same Code of Federal Regulations defines what constitutes a conflict.\u00a0 That is, \u201ca personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution\u201d<\/i> (28 CFR 45.2).\u00a0Comey is that person<\/i>.\u00a0 He was substantially involved in the conversation with President Trump who may be the subject of an obstruction investigation.\u00a0In fact, the former Director is the only<\/i> other person involved.\u00a0There were no witnesses beyond himself.<\/p>\n

A conflict of interest is a situation in which an individual has competing interests or loyalties.\u00a0Here, it sets up a clash between the special counsel\u2019s self-interest or bias and his professional or public interest in discharging his responsibilities in a fair, objective and impartial manner.\u00a0His close association with the star witness raises the likelihood of prejudice or favoritism which is anathema to the fair administration of justice.<\/p>\n

Mueller has no choice but to disqualify himself.\u00a0The law affords him no discretion because the recusal is mandatory in its language.\u00a0 It does not say \u201cmay\u201d or \u201ccan\u201d or \u201cmight\u201d.\u00a0It says the special counsel \u201cshall\u201d <\/i>recuse himself in such instances.\u00a0 <\/i><\/p>\n

An excellent post by Robert Barnes<\/a><\/u>, a constitutional lawyer, identifies five statutes, regulations and codes of conduct that Mueller is violating because of his conflict of interest with Comey.\u00a0 Byron York, chief political correspondent for the Washington Examiner recounts in detail<\/a><\/u> the close personal relationship between Mueller and Comey which gives rise to the blatant conflict of interest.<\/p>\n

Mueller and Comey<\/b><\/p>\n

As I pointed out three weeks ago, the relationship between Mueller and Comey is not a casual one.\u00a0They are well known to be good friends and former colleagues who worked side-by-side at the FBI and Department of Justice handling together several important cases. Agents quipped they were joined at the hip.<\/p>\n

In one memorable case, they stood in solidarity, both threatening to resign over the warrantless wiretapping fiasco involving then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004.<\/p>\n

But the Comey-Mueller duo are best known for \u201cbadly bungling the biggest case they ever handled\u201d together \u2013the 2001 anthrax letters attacks that killed 5 people and infected 17 others in Washington in 2001.\u00a0 The story is well told<\/a><\/u> by Carl M. Cannon, executive editor and Washington bureau chief of RealClearPolitics.<\/p>\n

It appears that Mueller, Comey and others misinterpreted the evidence and botched the case by fingering an innocent man, Steven Hatfill. It ended up costing taxpayers roughly $ 5 million in a legal settlement.<\/p>\n

Here is the interesting part that few people recall.\u00a0Hatfill\u2019s successful lawsuit accused the FBI and DOJ of leaking<\/i> information about him to the press in violation of the federal Privacy Act.\u00a0 Sound familiar?\u00a0That\u2019s right, a leak<\/i>.\u00a0Very much like Comey\u2019s premeditated leak to the media of his now infamous memo reciting his alleged conversation with President Trump.\u00a0Perhaps, old habits are hard to break.<\/p>\n

As York points out, the Washington Post published a story the day Mueller was appointed special counsel entitled, \u201cBrothers In Arms: The Long Friendship Between Mueller And Comey.\u201d<\/i>\u00a0 But nowhere in the article does it venture toward the obvious \u2013that their relationship presents a glaring and disqualifying conflict of interest.\u00a0 So much for journalistic curiosity.<\/p>\n

Perhaps most revealing is a lengthy Washingtonian story four years ago, describing in detail a deep friendship that stretches back over a decade.\u00a0Mueller and Comey became \u201cclose partners and close allies\u201d<\/i>.\u00a0 So close, \u201cthere was only one person in government whom Comey could confide in and trust: Bob Mueller.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n

Against this backdrop, the inevitable conflict of interest comes into full view.\u00a0 If the special counsel is investigating whether the president tried to obstruct justice, the case becomes a test of \u201che said\u2026he said.\u201d Which man will Mueller believe?\u00a0His good friend or the man who fired his good friend?\u00a0How can Mueller fairly and impartially assess Comey\u2019s credibility versus Trump\u2019s? He cannot.<\/p>\n

Equally important, how can the public be assured that Mueller\u2019s decision is free of partiality, if not animus, driven by his personal affection for Comey?\u00a0It is reasonable to assume that Mueller was not pleased to see his good friend fired by Trump.\u00a0Might the special counsel be tempted to exact retribution by conjuring criminality where none may exist?\u00a0This is precisely why there are legal and ethical rules which demand recusal based on prior relationships.<\/p>\n

What If Comey Becomes a Target? \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

It is bad enough that the special counsel is a close friend of the star witness in any pursuit of obstruction against the president.\u00a0But what are we to make of Comey\u2019s conduct?\u00a0If it is criminal, would Mueller decide to prosecute his friend?\u00a0 Or will he be tempted to overlook incriminating evidence?\u00a0That evidence is worth examining.<\/p>\n

Comey was stunningly wrong when testified that his memo of the conversation with the president was his personal property.\u00a0It was not.\u00a0The Federal Records Act and the Records Management regulations at the DOJ and FBI state that anything done in the course and scope of government employment is the property of the government, not the employee.\u00a0Comey was acting as the FBI Director when he conversed with Trump about a pending case. He wrote the memo in his official capacity. \u00a0It was not Comey\u2019s to keep personally or give away to someone outside the government without permission.<\/p>\n

It is a crime for an employee, such as Comey, to convert government property to his own personal use.\u00a0 Yes, 18 USC 641 makes it a felony to \u201csteal, sell or convey\u201d it to someone else.\u00a0That is exactly what Comey did by giving it to a professor at Columbia University Law School for the sole purpose of leaking it to the media.\u00a0Comey\u2019s ultimate design was for the leak to prompt the appointment of a special prosecutor who, conveniently, is his good friend Robert Mueller.<\/p>\n

Beyond the statutory violation, Comey\u2019s non-disclosure contract promises he will not disclose the very type of record or information he leaked.\u00a0Doing so, subjects him to \u201ccriminal sanctions and personal liability in a civil action\u201d, according to the terms of his agreement.\u00a0It matters not that he is no longer employed by the FBI. \u00a0It is a binding, enforceable, and actionable contract regardless of Comey\u2019s job status.<\/p>\n

Finally, there is some evidence Comey may have lied in his testimony.\u00a0He was asked if he ever received the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the form of a DOJ memo outlining the \u201cparameters of the recusal.\u201d Comey answered, under oath, \u201cno.\u201d\u00a0Hours later, the DOJ released that very memo sent to Comey which it alleges he received and read.\u00a0If so, this would seem to be persuasive evidence Comey did not tell the truth.\u00a0Lying to congress and perjury are felonies.<\/p>\n

There are other parts of Comey\u2019s testimony which are being called into question, including his claim he never authored a memo about any prior presidential conversations, as well as his statement that he only leaked the contents of his memorandum after Trump issued a tweet about the possibility of tapes.\u00a0 A story in the New York Times suggests something quite different.<\/p>\n

Robert Mueller\u2019s disqualifying conflict of interest is now more glaring than ever after the Comey hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.\u00a0The panel proved to be an oxymoron in its failure to ask obvious questions about any conversations Mueller had with Comey before he testified.\u00a0Senators are known for their lack of intellectual curiosity, but this was well beyond the pale.<\/p>\n

How many times did the two friends meet or converse?\u00a0Did they plan Comey\u2019s testimony?\u00a0Did they devise a way for him to avoid his own potential legal jeopardy over deliberate leaks to the media?\u00a0Not one senator bothered to pose those questions.<\/p>\n

Significantly, did Mueller and Comey agree to a plan to make a case against President Trump for obstruction of justice?\u00a0Are they now acting in concert to bring down the president?<\/p>\n

It sure looks and smells like that. Indeed, there is a distinct stench arising from the all-too cozy Mueller-Comey relationship.\u00a0 So, why not call it what seems to be?<\/p>\n

The law firm of Mueller & Comey\u2026 acting as co-special counsel.<\/p>\n

Maybe that <\/i>is the only\u00a0\u201ccollusion\u201d in this whole sordid affair.<\/p>\n