]

]

Remember that swamp President Trump hoped to drain?  Did you ever wonder who ol’ Fire & Fury might have been talking about when he referred to the swampdwellers?

Meet one of the newest identified members of the Swampdweller Homeowner Association.

Her name is Paige Herwig.

Thanks to Susan Crabtree at The Washington Free Beacon, we now know a lot more about Herwig and her close friends in the swamp.  Reporter Crabtree’s story is headlined Justice Officials Sent Talking Points to FBI on Lynch Tarmac Meeting With Bill Clinton.

And does the name ‘Elizabeth Carlisle‘ cause any alarm bells to go off?

OpenCdA is beginning to think that maybe it’s time for Attorney General Sessions to un-recuse himself and arrange for DAG Rod Rosenstein and Special Counsel Robert Mueller to have a neighborhood swim party with Paige Herwig, their new neighbor in the swamp.

Toodles, Paige!

Twenty Republican members of the US House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, have formally requested that US Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein

“… appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath, including actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

Here is a link to the entire letter the House Judiciary submitted on July 27, 2017.

The seven-page letter signed by twenty Representatives (including Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho) makes a very readable and compelling case for appointing a second special counsel.

It will be interesting to see how the DoJ responds — if it can.  Assuming AG Sessions’ declared conflict was justified for matters surrounding the alleged interference by Russia, it would remain justified for the present request as well.  But beyond that, we wonder how any of the Obama holdovers in the DoJ and FBI on their respective Mahogany Rows and those now on the payroll of Mueller’s Muggers (Special Counsel, Ver. 1.0) who contributed very heavily to the failed Clinton presidential campaign could not conflict out as well.

In his prepared Statement for the Record:  Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, June 8, 2017, former FBI Director James Comey recounted a private conversation between President Trump and him over dinner on January 27, 2017.  President Trump used the word “loyalty” several times in talking with Comey.

With absolute predictability the national skews media jumped on the word “loyalty” and its context as attributed to  President Trump and concluded that the President was demanding Comey’s loyalty as a condition of Comey’s keeping his job as Director of the FBI.

Loyalty to what or to whom?  To the Constitution?  To the President of the United States?  To Donald J. Trump?

Nowhere does Comey’s statement reflect that he (Comey) asked this question:  “Mr. President, you’ve mentioned ‘loyalty’ several times tonight.   As President of the United States, what exactly are your expectations for my loyalty as Director of the FBI?  What are your expectations how I will demonstrate the loyalty you describe?”

The questions would have been respectful and reasonable to identify and help resolve any misunderstandings between the President and Comey.   It was irresponsible for Comey not to ask them, especially since in his prepared statement, Comey says, “…, it is possible we understrood the phrase ‘honest loyalty’ differently, but I decided it wouldn’t be productive to push it further.  The term — honest loyalty — had helped end a very awkward conversation and my explanations had made clear what he should expect.”

How did Comey know that Comey’s own explanations had made clear what the President should expect?    How did he know how the President interpreted his explanations?  The answer is that Comey didn’t know.  Comey was afraid to ask the President questions to make sure he understood what the President meant by “loyalty.”  Comey wanted the “awkward conversation” to end.  Comey rationalized that seeking precision and clarity wouldn’t be productive.

In his subsequent sworn personal testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Comey wished that he had been stronger in his conversations with the President.

So do we.   The President and the nation deserved better than James Comey delivered.

Some members of Congress, former swamp dwellers in the federal government, and members of the ooze and skews media (we’ll refer to them collectively as the U.S. Knavery or just Knavery) clearly will do whatever they believe is necessary to remove President Donald J. Trump from office.

To that end, the Knavery has been asserting that President Trump’s campaign ‘colluded’ with Russia to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.   The term ‘collusion’ is vague, but if there is an impeachable offense somewhere in the ‘collusion’ they assert, we believe the Knavery must produce admissible and conclusive physical evidence of the instrumentalities of the offense.   Show us the ‘hacked’ voting machines.  Show us the altered paper ballots.   Show us evidence that vast numbers of state election officials were bribed to change vote tallies.  Show us the evidence.

Our feeling is that if the Knavery had evidence of the offense, it would have been produced by now.

Likely knowing their efforts would fail to find DNA evidence of anything resembling an impeachable offense as alleged, the Knavery decided to escalate its efforts.  It decided to employ its Ministry of Disinformation (the ooze and skews media) to convince the public that President Trump had obstructed justice.

Our May 18, 2017, post entitled Obstruction of Justice? provided a primer on the offenses comprising obstruction of justice relating to interference with legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Here is a link to another CRS publication entitled Obstruction of Justice Statutes:  Legal Issues Concerning FBI Investigations, Specific Intent, and Executive Branch Personnel.  This CRS Legal Sidebar was published on May 19, 2017, and is relevant because the Knavery is asserting that President Trump must have obstructed justice if he discussed the Flynn investigation with former FBI Director James Comey.

Memo to the U.S. Knavery:  If you only have straws, grasp at them.

On Wednesday, May 17, 2017,  US Representative Al Green (TX-9) addressed the House and called for President Trump to be impeached.  Green alleges President Trump committed an impeachable offense, obstruction of justice.

Green was not the first nor will he be the last to allege obstruction of justice.

To help members of Congress better understand ‘obstruction of justice,’ the Congressional Research Service published a report entitled ‘Obstruction of Justice:  An Overview of Some Federal Statutes That Prohibit Interference with Judicial, Executive, or Legislative Activities.’  The 89-page report was dated April 17, 2014.

Here is the US Department of Justice’s formal announcement of the appointment of Robert Mueller to serve as “Special Counsel to oversee the previously-confirmed FBI investigation of Russian government efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election and related matters.”

Here is a link to the formal order signed by Acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein.  It succinctly defines Special Counsel Mueller’s authority and the scope of his duties.

Acting AG Rosenstein’s order refers to several sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  Here are links to the applicable CFR sections.

28 CFR 600.4 defines the Special Counsel Jurisdiction.

28 CFR 600.5 defines and authorizes Staff.

28 CFR 600.6 defines Powers and Authority.

28 CFR 600.7 defines Conduct and accountability.

28 CFR 600.8 prescribes Notification and reports by the Special Counsel.

28 CFR 600.9 prescribes Notification and reports by the Attorney General.

28 CFR 600.10 is a No creation of rights disclaimer.