Newt Gingrich Says You Must Read The Rosenstein MEMO Telling President Trump To Fire James Comey. READ HERE NOW.

by Ruby Henley

The American people should read the Rosenstein memo sent to Trump before he fired Comey.  Newt Gingrich just announced today: “Let the country, through Sunday talk shows, deal with the memo. It’s devastating. It’s clear that if you got that memo and you’re the president, you would have fired Comey,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich was referring to the three-page memo that Rosenstein wrote in May 2017 after Trump announced he had fired Comey, entitled “Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI.”

Rosenstein wrote that he “cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken.” thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/384358-gingrich-trump-mishandled-rosenstein-memo-on-comey

 

HERE ARE THE CONTENTS OF THAT MEMO:

documents.latimes.com/closer-look-deputy-atty-gen-rod-rosensteins-letter-comeys-firing/

“U. S. Department of Justice

Of?ce of the Deputy Attorney General

The Deputy Attorney Geniernl llr?nrhiuytun. DC. 20.530

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL if

FROM: ROD J.

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation?s premier federal

investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the Bl?s reputation and credibility have suffered

substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to

many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the

immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public

service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director?s handling of the

conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to

accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director

made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

 

The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General?s authority on July 5, 2016, and

announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution. It is not the

function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said

the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its ?ndings to federal prosecutors. The

Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta

had a con?ict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and

assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other

officials to step in when a con?ict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5,

however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation?s most sensitive criminal

investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not

hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal

investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal

investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his

version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a

textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical questions at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his

remarks by saying that his ?goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what

do we think about it.? But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our

thoughts at a press conference. Tito goal is to determine whether there is suf?cient evidence to

justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority

delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then if prosecution is

warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about

closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

 

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision

as a choice between whether he would ?speak? about the decision to investigate the newly-

discovered email messages or ?conceal? it. ?Conceal? is a loaded term that tnisstates the issue.

When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing

anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-

public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

 

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy

Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who

served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that ?it is not the bureau?s

reSponsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.? Silbertnan believes that the

Director?s ?performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau

will ever completely recover.? Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President

Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W.

Bush, to opine that the Director had ?chosen personally to restrike the balance between

transparency and fairness, departing from the department?s traditions.? They concluded that the

Director violated his obligation to ?preserve, protect and defend? the traditions of the

Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W.

Bush, observed that the Director ?stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation

in that fashion” because the FBI director ?doesn?t make that decision.” Alberto Gonzales, who

also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision ?an error

in judgment.? Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and

Attorney General under President Obama, said that the Director?s decision ?was incorrect. It

violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance

that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an

election season.? Holder concluded that the Director ?broke with these fundamental principles?

and ?negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events

as ?real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal

criminal investigation,? that is ?antithetical to the interests of justice.?

 

Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President George HW.

Bush, along with other former Justice Department of?cials, was ?astonished and perplexed? by

the decision to ?break[] with longstanding practices followed by of?cials of both parties during

Memorandum for the Attorney General

Page 3

Subject: Restoring Public Con?dence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation

past elections.” Ayer?s letter noted, ?Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by this

departure from the Department?s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.?

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not

be taken I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The

way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the

FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands

the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors,

the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.”

 

The mistakes in the above letter are not mine.  I just wanted you to read it for yourself, and remember that memo is why President Trump fired James Comey.

Then Rosenstein hired Mueller to investigate.

Are you suspicious yet?

Now Sessions is threatening to walk out if Rosenstein is fired.

Trump has been betrayed.

You should be very suspicious of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, as he could be blamed for this ridiculous situation revolving around President.  President Trump has begged Sessions to step in and do his job numerous times. I would love to know who encouraged Trump to appoint him as Attorney General.  I know that Sessions appointed Rosenstein. Rosenstein set Trump up to fire Comey, as he put out the memo, WHICH BASICALLY TOLD TRUMP TO FIRE COMEY.

Nothing makes sense anymore, and I feel like I am being tossed around in a storm without a compass.

When Sessions was appointed as Attorney General by Trump, the first thing he did was to recuse himself from the Russia collusion investigation; therefore, turning it over to his chosen one, Rod Rosenstein.

When you connect the dots, it is quite shocking.

  1. Trump appoints Jeff Session as AG.
  2. Sessions recuses himself abandoning Trump.
  3. Jeff Sessions appoints Rod Rosenstein.
  4. Rosenstein drafts letter saying Comey should be fired for his investigation into Clinton.
  5. Trump fires Comey.
  6. Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel.

Whoever suggested to Trump that Jeff Sessions would make a good Attorney General?

All Sessions has done is try to deprive the American people from the use of a substance, which in some cases is a medical blessing.

Then he precedes to allow a drug company to use the synthetic of that substance in their killer drugs.

What is going on?

Today it was reported that Sessions requested details from the White House attorney of a meeting between Trump and Rosenstein that took place on April 12.  He was reportedly relieved when he was told that the encounter was cordial, according to the Post.

One person familiar with the phone call told the Post that Sessions did not intend to threaten his resignation, but simply wanted to express his concern that Rosenstein’s ouster would put him in a difficult position.

However, in other reports, it is said Sessions said he “would walk” if Rosenstein is fired.  They were seen dining together recently.

 

 

Let us go back in time. www.vox.com/2016/11/18/13675866/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-donald-trump

“Sessions went from GOP dissenter to close ally of the president-elect –

Sessions has been a key adviser to the Trump campaign from very close to the beginning. He was the first member of the US Senate to endorse Trump. Even before then, he played a key role in the development of Trump’s immigration platform — if he and his staff didn’t write the platform themselves, it certainly bore more resemblance to ideas that Sessions had been advancing as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration than it did to Trump’s own comments on the subject.

His influence with Trump appears to have only grown since the election. The transition team shake-up last week, in which Vice President-elect Mike Pence replaced New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, was seen as a sign of Sessions’s rising power: His chief of staff was named executive director for the transition, and a former aide of his, Stephen Miller, is its national policy director.

If Bannon is the intellectual godfather of many of Trump’s views, Sessions was the policy progenitor of Trump’s White House.

A black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures testified that, during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.” Sessions claimed the comment was clearly said in jest. Figures didn’t see it that way”.

 

www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-feinstein-rosenstein-s-memo-reads-like-1494511819-htmlstory.html

“In a scathing statement released Thursday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) calls on both Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions and Deputy Atty. Gen. Rod J. Rosenstein to recuse themselves from the “appointment, selection and reporting of a special counsel” to investigate Russia’s meddling in the U.S. presidential election.

Feinstein also calls Rosenstein’s memo recommending the ouster of FBI Director James Comey a “political document”; “hastily assembled to justify a preordained outcome.”

Here’s the text of her statement:

“I’ve now read Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s memo three times. With each read I’ve become more troubled by the contents of this unusual document.

Given Rosenstein’s legal expertise and 27-year Justice Department career, I would have expected him to produce a detailed and comprehensive rationale for Director Comey’s firing including input from the agents and staff who worked with Director Comey.

But instead of a document that provides meaningful analysis, the memo reads like political document. It includes quotes from op-eds and television appearances that are as old as six months. It doesn’t include any contemporary insights from inside the FBI. The memo appears to have been hastily assembled to justify a preordained outcome.

The attorney general and deputy attorney general should recuse themselves from the appointment, selection and reporting of a special counsel. This issue should be handled by the most senior career attorney at the Justice Department.”

 

In conclusion, it is time to connect the dots.

Related Posts:

If everyone who reads our story, who likes it, helps fund it, our future would be much more secure. For as little as $10, you can support the IWB – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. 3,691 views
Related Posts: