Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
White House Lawyer Emmett Flood has released a letter to William Barr that utterly shreds the conduct of Grand Inquisitor Robert Mueller and his highly unethical conduct during the Russian Collusion Witch Hunt.
For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."
{
I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.
What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.
............
An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}
Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr
For the leftists, who of course are stupid, SCO is "Special Counsel's Office."
{
I begin with the SCO's stated conclusion on the obstruction question: The SCO
concluded that the evidence prevent[ed] [it] from conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred." 300 Report v.2. p2. But conclusively determining that no criminal
conduct occurred was not the assigned task, because making conclusive determinations
of innocence is never the task of the federal prosecutor.
What prosecutors are supposed to do is complete an investigation and then either ask the
grand jury to return an indictment or decline to charge the case. When prosecutors decline to
charge. they make that decision not because they have conclusively determin[ed] that no
criminal conduct occurred, but rather because they do not believe that the investigated conduct
constitutes a crime for which all the elements can be proven to the satisfaction of a jury beyond a
reasonable doubt. Prosecutors simply are not in the business of establishing innocence. any more
than they are in the business of "exonerating" investigated persons. In the American justice
system, innocence is presumed; there is never any need for prosecutors to conclusively
determine it. Nor is there any place for such a determination. Our country would be a very
different (and very dangerous) place if prosecutors applied the SCO standard and citizens were
obliged to prove conclusively . . . that no criminal conduct occurred.
............
An investigation of the President under a regulation that clearly specifies a very particular
form of closing documentation is not the place for indulging creative departures from governing
law. Under general prosecutorial principles. and under the Special Counsel regulations specific
language, prosecutors are to speak publicly through indictments or confidentially in declination
memoranda. By way of justifying this departure. it has been suggested that the Report was
written with the intent of providing Congress some kind of "road map" for congressional action.
See, ag. Remarks of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler. 4/18/19 (Press
Conference}. If that was in fact the intention, it too serves as additional evidence of the
refusal to follow applicable law. Both the language of the regulation and its "legislative"
history make plain that the "[c]losing documentation" language was promulgated for the specific purpose}
Read the entire letter at Read the letter White House counsel Emmet Flood wrote to AG Barr