Anonymous ID: fe4db7 Jan. 10, 2019, 2:13 p.m. No.4699505   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0030 >>0073

POWELL: How Did The Wife Of A Mueller Protege End Up Hearing Mueller’s Case?

 

Would it surprise you to learn that the judge presiding over a case of Robert Mueller’s is married to a Mueller protege? When Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted Concord, a Russian company that didn’t even exist, it landed on District of Columbia Judge Dabney Friedrich’s docket. At first, it appeared as though Friedrich had a handle on the malarkey taking place. At the initial hearings, she denied the special counsel’s request to delay everything. She rightfully questioned the validity of the charges — especially the unprecedented charge of “conspiracy against the United States.” As many noted, the Mueller squad did not anticipate that any of the Russian entities it indicted would appear to contest anything. Rather, the indictment was a publicity stunt to justify the existence of the “insurance policy” that is the entire special counsel prosecution — premised on what Comey has admitted was a big lie from its inception. Much to Mueller’s surprise, the defendants retained counsel, Eric Dubelier and Katherine Seikaly of Reed Smith. They are are not shrinking from the fray and, thankfully, unlike most D.C. attorneys who seem to “go along to get along,” they are not intimidated by special counsel’s hit-squad. One need only read some of their filings to see that. Dubelier and Seikaly are willing to call things as they see them — clearly infuriating Judge Friedrich.

 

Why, might one ask, is she so outraged now, that she would lambast counsel presenting a vigorous defense and command him to “knock it off“? Has he hit a nerve, accusing special counsel of making up crimes and other improprieties? The answer could lie, as it does with many of the shenanigans of the deep state and Mueller squad, in my book.

 

Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich is none other than the wife of Matthew Friedrich, one of the three villains in my book. Matthew Friedrich is a longtime friend and colleague of Andrew Weissmann and Robert Mueller. They bonded on the Enron Task Force — what one writer, Mary Jacoby, wife of Fusion GPS’ Glenn Simpson, long ago called “the glue that binds.” Judge Dabney Langhorne Friedrich, from a Virginia blue-blood family, has been appointed to various positions by presidents Bush and Obama — the uni-party. Unfortunately, no one informed President Trump of her full background, and he appointed her to the federal bench.

 

Like Weissmann, Mueller had a hand in picking Matthew Friedrich for the notorious Enron Task Force, where they quickly destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP, the venerable accounting firm, and its 85,000 jobs all for nothing. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Andersen conviction two years later. These prosecutors were so overreaching that courts even had to allow people to withdraw guilty pleas. Next, Weissmann, Friedrich and their gang turned their sights on Merrill Lynch. They sent four Merrill executives to prison on an indictment alleging conduct that was not criminal, while they had yellow-highlighted but hidden the exact evidence that showed these executives were innocent. Even the Strzok-Page text messages acknowledge how the Enron Task Force prosecutors protected each other throughout the years. Indeed, one or moreof this prosecutorial terror squad have been in the White House, high in the Department of Justice, or high in the FBI, for the last two decades. It was only by accident that six years after the first trial, new prosecutors gave us the evidence the Weissmann-Friedrich cabal had hidden from the trial counsel.

 

Friedrich’s “victories” on the Enron Task Force catapulted him to Attorney General Mukasey’s acting assistant attorney general of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, from whence he immediately rushed to indict then Sen. Ted Stevens. Matt Friedrich micro-managed that prosecution to precision, and it was corrupted to its core. The entire case had to be thrown out, and the special prosecutor appointed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to investigate the Department of Justice found intentional, systematic, and pervasive misconduct within the department. Weissmann, Friedrich, Mueller are the deep state. Mueller is the “insurance policy” of which Strzok, Page and McCabe wrote.

 

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/01/10/mueller-protege/

Anonymous ID: fe4db7 Jan. 10, 2019, 2:27 p.m. No.4699705   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9738 >>9800 >>9938 >>0073

White House Reinforces Counsel’s Office As Subpoenas, Mueller Report Loom

 

The White House counsel’s office has hired 17 lawyers in recent weeks. Pat Cipollone, the newly-installed White House counsel, is expanding his staff in view of the coming deluge of congressional subpoenas and special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report, according to The Washington Post. “It’s almost as if he’s building a law firm within a government entity,” attorney Jay Sekulow told the Post. “You have very senior lawyers coalescing into a great team.” The White House counsel does not advise or represent the president in his personal capacity. Rather, the office protects presidential prerogatives, troubleshoots on legal questions arising in the policy process and issues guidance on the scope of executive power.

 

President Donald Trump has retained Sekulow and Rudy Giuliani as his personal attorneys. Emmet Flood, who briefly served as acting White House counsel following Don McGahn’s departure, is coordinating the administration’s response to the Mueller inquiry. Flood is an expert on issues of presidential power and advised former President Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial.

 

Giuliani told WaPo that the White House may seek to suppress provisions of Mueller’s report protected by executive privilege, which shields sensitive information and the president’s private consultations with his advisers. In particular, Trump’s lawyers may wish to claim privilege over the president’s discussions about former FBI Director James Comey’s dismissal, which the special counsel is reportedly investigating for possible obstruction of justice, as well as Mueller’s interviews with Trump aides. Those moves would assuredly draw vigorous objections from congressional Democrats, who could seek the privileged portions of the report through subpoenas or other mechanisms.

 

That conflict would migrate to the judiciary, where the Supreme Court may ultimately decide the matter. A close historical analogue to such a dispute is the 1974 U.S. v. Nixon decision, in which President Richard Nixon refused to comply with a subpoena for the infamous “Nixon tapes” and related documents, prompting a legal battle culminating in a landmark Supreme Court decision. Among other arguments, Nixon lawyers said that the president’s claim to executive privilege, a new principle which at that point had never been acknowledged by the high court, was absolute and could not be challenged. The justices agreed that executive privilege existed and could be used legitimately in areas like national security and foreign affairs. However, the Court also found that the privilege did not extend as far as Nixon contended, so the justices ordered Nixon to comply with the subpoena. Thus, the Nixon decision is often cast as a victory for the presidency, but a defeat for President Nixon himself.

 

Unlike the Mueller probe, Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski did not prepare a comprehensive report on the president’s conduct for congressional or public consumption. Rather, his office helped provide congressional investigators with evidence obtained through a grand jury. Jaworski then submitted a 55-page memo to the House Judiciary Committee to help Congress make sense of the evidence. Jaworski’s so-called “road map” memo remains under seal, though scholars are currently attempting to secure its release.

 

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/01/10/white-house-counsel-new-lawyers/

Anonymous ID: fe4db7 Jan. 10, 2019, 2:40 p.m. No.4699880   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>9938 >>0073

Alphabet board faces lawsuit on allegations of sexual misconduct cover-up

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A shareholder’s lawsuit filed on Thursday said the board of Google parent Alphabet Inc played a direct role in covering up sexual misconduct claims against two top executives in 2014 and 2016. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The lawsuit in San Mateo County Superior Court in California by shareholder James Martin cites minutes from Alphabet board and board committee meetings. The lawsuit seeks to force Google to upgrade its governance and oversight to stop future sexual harassment and discrimination. It also seeks to have shareholders vote on proposals to end non-disclosure agreements and mandatory arbitrations that keep suspected misconduct from becoming public and to force directors to pay punitive and other damages to Alphabet.

 

Attorneys for Martin said they plan to show that Google suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in damages because of the board’s actions. The sum stems from payouts made to executives accused of sexual misconduct, lost productivity from employees around the world walking off the job briefly in November to protest the payouts and brand reputation damage.

 

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai apologized last year to employees for the companies' past handling of sexual misconduct cases and vowed to improve practices. The employee demonstrations followed a New York Times report in October that said Google in 2014 gave a $90 million exit package to then senior vice president Andy Rubin after he was accused of sexual harassment. Rubin said the report mischaracterized the circumstances of his departure. Martin’s lawsuit said Alphabet board members were directly involved in deciding how to deal with Rubin after an internal investigation found the allegations against him credible.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-lawsuit/alphabet-board-faces-lawsuit-on-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct-cover-up-idUSKCN1P42RJ