AG Sessions Unwinds Obama’s Marijuana Policy

Posted on January 4, 2018January 4, 2018 by Denise Simon

Oregon, one of the first states to push back:

SALEM, Ore. — An Oregon congressman who is one of a chief backer of legalized marijuana is urging a fight against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session’s plan to open the gates to federal enforcement of laws against marijuana.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, a Democrat who co-sponsored an amendment that prevents the Justice Department from interfering with states’ medical marijuana programs, called the move outrageous. He said anyone who cares about this issue should mobilize and push back strongly.

“One wonders if Trump was consulted—it is Jeff Sessions after all—because this would violate his campaign promise not to interfere with state marijuana laws,” he said in a prepared statement.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown said rolling back federal marijuana policy, which has been largely non-interventionist, will disrupt the state’s economy. She said over 19,000 jobs have been created by the marijuana market in Oregon, which was the first state to decriminalize personal possession in 1973, legalized medical marijuana in 1998, and recreational use in 2014.

“The federal government must keep its promise to states that relied on its guidance,” she said in a statement. “My staff and state agencies … will fight to continue Oregon’s commitment to a safe and prosperous recreational marijuana market.”

More here.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department on Thursday rescinded a policy begun under Democratic former President Barack Obama that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws, saying it would be up to federal prosecutors across the country to prioritize any such drug cases.

The Obama administration’s guidelines had “created a safe harbor for the marijuana industry to operate in these states and … there is a belief that that is inconsistent with what the federal law says,” a Justice Department official told reporters, referring to states that have legalized the drug.

***

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, January 4, 2018

Justice Department Issues Memo on Marijuana Enforcement

The Department of Justice today issued a memo on federal marijuana enforcement policy announcing a return to the rule of law and the rescission of previous guidance documents. Since the passage of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970, Congress has generally prohibited the cultivation, distribution, and possession of marijuana.

In the memorandum, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directs all U.S. Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress and to follow well-established principles when pursuing prosecutions related to marijuana activities. This return to the rule of law is also a return of trust and local control to federal prosecutors who know where and how to deploy Justice Department resources most effectively to reduce violent crime, stem the tide of the drug crisis, and dismantle criminal gangs.

“It is the mission of the Department of Justice to enforce the laws of the United States, and the previous issuance of guidance undermines the rule of law and the ability of our local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement partners to carry out this mission,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Therefore, today’s memo on federal marijuana enforcement simply directs all U.S. Attorneys to use previously established prosecutorial principles that provide them all the necessary tools to disrupt criminal organizations, tackle the growing drug crisis, and thwart violent crime across our country.”

Attachment(s):

Download Marijuana Enforcement 1.4.18

Component(s):

Office of the Attorney General

What Goes on in Sanctuary California Wont Stay in California

Posted on January 3, 2018January 3, 2018 by Denise Simon

photo

Federal dollars going to California could or should be considered foreign aid. Why? Read on…

The federal government spends some $367.8 billion a year on California. That’s an average of about $9,500 for every woman, man and child in the state.

In truth, the money isn’t spread out evenly. About 56 cents of every federal dollar spent in California, according to the analysis, goes to health or retirement benefits — Social Security, Medicare and money for low-income residents’ health care through the Medi-Cal program.

Defense contracts are the next biggest slice of the pie, followed by paychecks to military and civilian government employees. From there, federal spending gets sprinkled among a number of programs run by the state government. Gov. Jerry Brown’s recent budget plan pegged those funds at a total of $105 billion, equivalent to about 58% of state taxpayer dollars to be spent in the fiscal year that begins on July 1.

A detailed report is here.

So, now that California is officially a sanctuary state under SB54, effective January1, 2018, those illegals, felons and those plotting threats with regard to national security can freely travel anywhere, this is not just a California problem.

Last year, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order to cut funding from counties that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities, Santa Clara County stood to lose $1.7 billion in federal funding. After fighting the order, a federal judge ruled in favor of the county. Now that the entire state is following the same guidelines, some leaders argue it could strengthen their position in future legal battles.

Not everyone is onboard, however. Some California sheriff’s departments have criticized the new sanctuary state law, saying it will lead to broad roundups that could lead to collateral arrests. More here.

photo

There is a key word in this new law, it is ‘prohibits’.

BILL SUMMARY

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from holding illegal aliens on the basis of federal immigration detainers, or transferring them into federal custody, unless they’ve been convicted in the last 15 years for one of a list of 31 crimes, or are a registered sex offender: if not, they may only be held with a warrant from a federal judge.

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from asking anyone about their immigration status.

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from sharing any information with federal immigration authorities that is not available to the general public.

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from using any of their money or personnel to “investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes”.

Prohibits state and local law enforcement from allowing federal immigration authorities to use space in their facilities.

Limits how and when state and local law enforcement can contract with federal immigration authorities.

Grants discretion to state and local law enforcement to cooperate even less with federal immigration authorities than the bill authorizes them to, but not more

Is near-universally recognized and described by both its supporters and opponents as a sanctuary state bill: protects illegal aliens at the expense of citizens, will increase illegal immigration to California, and sends the message that illegal aliens are welcome everywhere in the state.

***

State Senate Leader Kevin de Leon, the author of the bill, has argued that public safety will be undermined if the law isn’t passed. It is estimated that more than 2 million undocumented people live in California — with hundreds of thousands from Asia as well as Latin America — and advocates say many will be scared to interact with official institutions if they fear that will put them on federal immigration agents’ radar. They say individuals might not report violent crimes to police, might not send their kids to school or might not seek medical care at the local hospital. And there is some evidence to back that up: Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Police Department said that Latino communities were reporting fewer instances of sexual assault and domestic violence because of concerns about deportation under Trump. More here.

***

California Democratic state Senate president Kevin de León intends to enter California’s 2018 Senate race against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, three sources with knowledge of his plans say.

De León has begun calling labor leaders and elected officials to inform them of his plans, the sources said, and is expected to soon announce his campaign against Feinstein, a giant of California Democratic politics who has held the office since 1992.

The 50-year-old de León, who represents Los Angeles and is seen as a leading Latino voice in Democratic politics, is likely to campaign aggressively against President Donald Trump. He began signaling he could oppose Feinstein in late August, after she said Trump could “be a good president” and that he “can learn and change.” Feinstein later clarified that she is “under no illusion that it’s likely to happen and will continue to oppose his policies.” More here.

So who is this de Leon character? That is a challenge to determine and he has not been fully forthcoming on his own history. Check it out here.

We also had this sexual harassment case, where de Leon was the roommate. Hummm. He was also a college dropout.

De León was the first and only person in his family to graduate from high school and attend college. He started out at the University of California Santa Barbara, but it was a challenge. He had moxie but no organizational skills, no practice at taking notes or studying for a test. He didn’t last long.

He couldn’t go back home and tell his mother of his failure. Instead, he went to work for One Stop Immigration Center, a nonprofit in Los Angeles that helps undocumented immigrants fill out paperwork and teaches them English, history and organizing.

Then, the Attorney General for California is Javier Beccera. He is a loyal and dedicated supported of the Dream Act and will defend all cases against California becoming a sanctuary state. Meanwhile, remember that whole Pakistani IT case in Congress under Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

Enter again Javier Beccera.

Now-indicted former congressional IT aide Imran Awan allegedly routed data from numerous House Democrats to a secret server. Police grew suspicious and requested a copy of the server early this year, but they were provided with an elaborate falsified image designed to hide the massive violations. The falsified image is what ultimately triggered their ban from the House network Feb. 2, according to a senior House official with direct knowledge of the investigation.

The secret server was connected to the House Democratic Caucus, an organization chaired by then-Rep. Xavier Becerra. Police informed Becerra that the server was the subject of an investigation and requested a copy of it. Authorities considered the false image they received to be interference in a criminal investigation, the senior official said.

On Jan. 24, 2017, Becerra vacated his congressional seat to become California’s attorney general. “He wanted to wipe his server, and we brought to his attention it was under investigation. The light-off was we asked for an image of the server, and they deliberately turned over a fake server,” the senior official said.

“They were using the House Democratic Caucus as their central service warehouse … It was a breach. The data was completely out of [the members’] possession. Does it mean it was sold to the Russians? I don’t know,” the senior official said.

Capitol Police considered the image a sign that the Awans knew exactly what they were doing and were going to great lengths to try to cover it up, the senior official said. The House Sergeant-at-Arms banned them from the network as a result.

The senior official said the data was also funneled offsite via a Dropbox account, from which copies could easily be downloaded. Authorities could not immediately shut down the account when the Awans were banned from the network because it was not an official account. More here.

One last item…don’t forget to keep Eric Holder in the whole mix regarding California.

Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder files brief on behalf of California Senate in Chicago’s ‘sanctuary city’ lawsuit

The California Senate is throwing its support behind Chicago in a lawsuit against the Justice Department over its plan to withhold federal money from “sanctuary cities,” which limit collaboration between state and local authorities with federal immigration agents.

Former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. and his firm, Covington & Burling, on Thursday filed a friend-of the-court brief on behalf of the state Senate in the federal case, saying sanctuary jurisdictions have policies consistent with federal law.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions, Holder says, does not have the constitutional authority to mandate that cities, counties or states participate in federal immigration efforts as a condition to receive their federal public safety awards.

The lawsuit, filed last month by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and city officials, asks a judge to block the Trump administration from enforcing three new conditions it included in petitions for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant money. The city uses the grant to buy police cars and other equipment, and to fund an anti-violence program.

Holder, who was said to have filed the brief pro-bono, was temporarily hired by the Senate and Assembly to serve as outside counsel to offer advice on the state’s legal strategy against the incoming administration. On Friday, a Covington & Burling spokeswoman said the firm remains “engaged with the California Senate on an ongoing basis.”

In the brief, Holder said the California Legislature has a particular interest in the Chicago case as it weighs Senate Bill 54, which seeks to limit state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to question, detain and provide information on immigrants illegally in the country.

Covington & Burling analyzed the legislation this year and concluded that “states have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.”

How the U.S. will Deal with Iran and the Protests

Posted on January 3, 2018January 3, 2018 by Denise Simon

Image result for iran protests photo

The 2009 protest in Iran, named the Green Revolution launched after the Obama famous Cairo speech was much larger than the current protests in opposition to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

As an aside, one must ask what is Europe going to do regarding Iran?

According to Fox News, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Steve Goldstein said the United States will post messages in Farsi on Facebook and Twitter to show Iranians that the United States supports the protests and Iranians in their quest for democracy. Goldstein reportedly said the U.S. is working to enable communication via these two platforms despite the Iranian government’s censorship efforts.

“Even though many social media sites have been blocked, Iranians can reach our State Department FB and Twitter sites, which are in Farsi, through VPN,” Goldstein reportedly said. “We would like Iran to open these legitimate forms of communication.”

Also on Tuesday, Goldstein told the Associated Press that the U.S. wants Iran’s government to “open these sites,” including Instagram and Telegram. “They are legitimate avenues for communication,” Goldstein reportedly said. “People in Iran should be able to access those sites.”

Image result for iran protests photo

EXCLUSIVE – A leaked report provided to Fox News shows how Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei met with political leaders and heads of the country’s security forces to discuss how to tamp down on the deadly nationwide protests.

The report covered several meetings up to December 31 and was provided to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) from what it said were high level sources from within the regime.

The meeting notes, which have been translated into English from Farsi, said the unrest has hurt every sector of the country’s economy and “threatens the regime’s security. The first step, therefore, is to find a way out of this situation.”

The report added, “Religious leaders and the leadership must come to the scene as soon as possible and prevent the situation (from) deteriorating further.” It continued, “God help us, this is a very complex situation and is different from previous occasions.”

As the protests continue to spread, the total number dead rose Monday to at least 13, including a police officer shot and killed with a hunting rifle in the central city of Najafabad.

According to NCRI sources and reports from within Iran, at least 40 cities across Iran witnessed protests Monday, including in the capital city of Tehran. These reports state that slogans heard included “Death to the dictator,” and “the leader lives like God while the people live like beggars.”

The regime’s notes claimed protesters “started chanting the ultimate slogans from day one. In Tehran today, people were chanting slogans against Khamenei and the slogans used yesterday were all against Khamenei.”

The notes added that the intelligence division of the feared Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is “monitoring the situation” and “working all in coordination to prevent protests.”

It says that a “red alert” has not yet been declared, which would lead to direct military intervention in the protests. But it then predicted that sending IRGC or the Bassij forces would “backfire” and would further “antagonize the protesters.”

Messages of support for the protesters from President Trump and other administration officials were also mentioned in the report. “The United States officially supported the people on the streets.” The notes continued by saying the U.S. and the West “have all united in support of the Hypocrites,” the regime’s pejorative description of the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) which is one of the groups making up the NCRI.

The meeting notes that the leader of the NCRI, Maryam Rajavi, and the “Infidels,” which the translation says refers to “the West,” “are united for the first time.” It continued, “Maryam Rajavi is hoping for regime change,” saying the protests are “definitely organized,” and “the security forces report that the MEK is very active and is leading and directing them.”

The notes also warn that all those affiliated with leadership “must be on alert and monitor the situation constantly,” continuing, “the security and intelligence forces must constantly monitor the situation on the scene and conduct surveillance and subsequently report to the office of the leadership.”

About THAT Arab Bank in New York

Posted on January 2, 2018January 2, 2018 by Denise Simon

Yet another deadly and financial scandal both Barack Obama and John Kerry ignored for the sake of the consummation of the Iran nuclear deal.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions is launching a review of a law enforcement initiative called Project Cassandra after an investigative report was published this week claiming the Obama administration gave a free pass to Hezbollah’s drug-trafficking and money-laundering operations to help ensure the Iran nuclear deal would stay on track.

The Justice Department said in a statement to Fox News that Sessions on Friday directed a review of prior Drug Enforcement Administration investigations “to evaluate allegations that certain matters were not properly prosecuted and to ensure all matters are appropriately handled.”

“While I am hopeful that there were no barriers constructed by the last administration to allowing DEA agents to fully bring all appropriate cases under Project Cassandra, this is a significant issue for the protection of Americans,” Sessions said in a written statement. “We will review these matters and give full support to investigations of violent drug trafficking organizations.” More here.

photo

Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS fame wrote about this case in 2005 while at the Wall Street Journal. And the LA Times further summarized the legal case against the Arab Bank and financing terror.

There is even a book about banking and terrorism.

Image result for lawfare law as a weapon of war

Back in 2015:

Three days before a first-of-its-kind damages trial was supposed to start, a Middle Eastern bank has reached a settlement with hundreds of American plaintiffs, including victims of terrorist attacks around Israel, who had filed a lawsuit against the bank accusing it of supporting terrorism.

A spokesman for the bank, Arab Bank, and a spokeswoman for one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs confirmed on Friday that an agreement had been reached but declined to offer additional details, including the amount of the settlement.

Last year, a jury in Federal District Court in Brooklyn found Arab Bank liable for financing terrorism by processing transactions for members of the militant Islamic group Hamas. More here.

*** Image result for arab bank new york Arab bank, New York

BEIRUT: Jordan’s largest lender, the Arab Bank, announced this week that a New York federal court dismissed more than 90 percent of the claims in a long-running lawsuit accusing it of providing banking services to charities and individuals allegedly affiliated with Palestinian militants. The ruling is the most significant victory yet for the Arab Bank yet in its nine-year legal battle with 6,596 relatives of victims killed or injured in two dozen Palestinian attacks in Israel during the Second Intifada. More here.

***

LINDE v. ARAB BANK, PLC

In July 2004, Osen LLC sued Arab Bank, Plc on behalf of American terror victims in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit, captioned Linde v. Arab Bank, Plc and brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), was the first civil lawsuit brought against Arab Bank. The Plaintiffs sought to hold Arab Bank liable for deaths and severe injuries resulting from acts of international terrorism that Palestinian terrorist groups perpetrated between 2000 and 2004, during the Second Intifada. After 10 years of litigation that included multiple appeals, American victims of terrorism were finally able to present their case to a Brooklyn jury in August and September 2014. The first trial centered around 24 terrorist attacks that the Plaintiffs alleged were perpetrated by Hamas, a Foreign Terrorist Organization that the United States first designated a terrorist entity in 1995. On September 22, 2014, an 11-person jury found Arab Bank liable for knowingly providing financial services for Hamas. This finding represented the first, and still only, time a financial institution has been held civilly liable for aiding terrorism.

The Liability Trial (August-September 2014)

During the course of the trial, which centered around 24 Hamas terrorist attacks between March 2001 and September 2004, the Plaintiffs proved that Arab Bank knowingly provided material support to Hamas by illegally maintaining accounts for: Hamas (via an account held in the name of senior Hamas leader and spokesman Osama Hamdan that accepted multiple checks explicitly made out to beneficiary “Hamas“); Hamas’s founder and supreme leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (Yassin was first designated a Specially Designated Terrorist in 1995); and dozens of other Hamas leaders and senior operatives, including Salah Shehadeh – founder and former head of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Gaza, and Ismail Haniyeh, former Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority and current Hamas leader in Gaza. The Plaintiffs also proved that Arab Bank knowingly provided material support to terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah that facilitated millions of dollars in direct transfers to the families of suicide bombers and other terrorist operatives through the Saudi Committee for the Support of the Intifada al Quds and the Al-Shahid Foundation. Lastly, the Plaintiffs proved that Arab Bank knowingly provided material support to Hamas by maintaining accounts for eleven Hamas-controlled organizations in the Palestinian Territories.

One of Arab Bank’s chief contentions, voiced by defense expert Beverley Milton-Edwards, was that the identities of Hamas leaders were not well known between 2000-2004. The jury, however, was shown a video of the funeral of the infamous Hamas bomb-maker, Muhanad al-Taher, in the town square of Nablus. Hamed Beitawi, vice-Chairman of the Nablus Zakat Committee and Chairman of the Islamic Solidarity Al-Tadhamun Charitable Society – Nablus (two of the eleven relevant Hamas-controlled organizations, both of which maintained accounts at Arab Bank) spoke at this very public event. Dr. Milton-Edwards was also impeached by video showing Salah Shehadeh – founder and former head of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades in Gaza – giving a speech to a massive audience, thus undercutting the Bank’s claim that Hamas leaders “lived in the shadows.”

Post-Trial Proceedings

After the jury rendered its unanimous verdict, Arab Bank filed 3 motions, arguing: (1) notwithstanding the jury’s verdict, Arab Bank was entitled to victory on the merits and dismissal of the case; (2) if the Court would not grant that relief, Arab Bank was entitled to a new trial because of purported mistakes the Court made in managing the trial; and (3) in any event, the Bank was entitled to immediate review of the verdict by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Court denied the Bank’s motions for a new trial and for Second Circuit review of the verdict. In its decision, the Court noted that the Bank’s liability was established “on volumes of damning circumstantial evidence that defendant knew its customers were terrorists.”

The Court further noted the testimony of the Bank’s own former head compliance officer in London who was presented with the Saudi Committee wire transfer payable to “the family of martyr Ibrahim Karim Beni Awda” and responded: “[w]e would never in a million years have dealt with a payment order such as this.”

The Court’s decision also took note of the testimony of Arab Bank’s primary expert witness, Dr. Milton-Edwards, who testified that the organizations in the Palestinian Territories at issue in the case were neither controlled by Hamas nor perceived as Hamas affiliates during the relevant period based in part of her review of “paraphernalia” she observed during her visits to these organizations. The Court observed that her testimony “backfired in spectacular fashion” when “it came out on cross-examination that she could not read Arabic.”

Furthermore, the Court noted Dr. Milton-Edwards’ impeachment by her own book: She had testified that the Islamic Society of Gaza was neither affiliated with Hamas nor perceived as such by the Palestinian public. Her book told a different story, however:

[t]he work of the Islamic Society and the rest of Hamas’s network in the decades up to, during and after the second intifada, when families needed it most, represented not so much a donation as an investment by Hamas, one that reached a lucrative political dividend in the 2006 election.

Ultimately, the Court concluded, “[t]he effect of cross-examination on Dr. Milton-Edwards’ testimony, and its potential spillover effect on the credibility of defendant’s entire case, is … hard to overstate.”

Arab Bank’s Appeal

Following the Court’s denial of the Bank’s motions for a new trial the parties prepared for the first damages trial, which the parties agreed to postpone once they reached a framework for settlement of all of the Plaintiffs’ Anti-Terrorism Act-related claims.

As part of the settlement, the Bank reserved the right to take a one-time appeal of the liability verdict, the outcome of which would determine the settlement’s precise contours. The briefing is complete and the Second Circuit heard extensive oral argument on May 16, 2017.

The Plotting Begins to Surface at FBI/DoJ

Posted on December 29, 2017December 29, 2017 by Denise Simon

Primer:

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”

While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:

While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?

After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.

The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.” More here.

Wider context:

Why do heads seem to be rolling—or at least tilting—at the Department of Justice and FBI?

Eight high ranking Department of Justice and FBI officials have been removed, reassigned or are rumored to be leaving. They include the top FBI agents who worked on two of the agency’s most high-profile investigations in the past two years: the probe into Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information as secretary of state, and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation.

There’s been a great deal of news coverage about allegations of collusion between President Trump and Russia; much of the reporting apparently accurate and some of it not.

Less attention has been given to concurrent investigations that seem to be claiming scalps even if indirectly.

The investigations into the investigators include Congressional inquiries and a multi-faceted probe launched by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz surrounding the FBI decision not to prosecute Clinton. Specifically, Horowitz—who was appointed by President Obama—said he’s reviewing:

Allegations that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik should have recused themselves.

Allegations of improper political contacts by Kadzik.

Allegations that Justice Department and FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information and were influenced by improper considerations in releasing certain documents just before the 2016 election.

Below are some of the players. Their inclusion in this article does not imply any wrongdoing. None of those mentioned are formally accused of any improper activities. Their past or pending job status may not be related to the controversies discussed. To the extent that any have commented, they firmly deny any misconduct and are staunchly defended by supporters and colleagues.

Fired: Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General

Sally Yates, former Deputy Attorney General

Alleged philosophical mutiny for failing to defend presidential order on immigration; alleged politically-motivated “unmaskings.”

Under questioning from Congress, Yates admitted that as Deputy Attorney General under Loretta Lynch, she engaged in the sensitive practice of unmasking and reviewing classified documents from “Trump, his associates or any member of Congress.” Later, as Acting Attorney General, Yates ordered Justice Department attorneys not to defend President Trump’s ban on certain Muslim visitors from entering the U.S.

Latest: President Trump fired Yates in January 2017. She was both praised and criticized for her stance on the travel ban. Since her firing, Yates has attacked President Trump in public referring to him as as “shamelessly unpatriotic,” saying he has “indifference to truth,” and claiming his “respect for the rule of law” is “in tatters.”

Departed: Peter Kadzik, Department of Justice liaison to Congress, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.

Peter Kadzik, former Justice Dept. Asst. Attorney General

Alleged conflicts of interest with the Hillary Clinton campaign and alleged disclosure of nonpublic information for political reasons.

During the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, Kadzik appeared to tip off Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta about two issues: an upcoming hearing where a Justice Department official would be asked about the Clinton emails, and the timing of the release of some Clinton emails. Kadzik previously worked for Podesta as an attorney. He denied any wrongdoing.

Latest: Kadzik left the Justice Department in January 2017 and works in private practice.

“Retiring”: Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director

Failure to exclude himself from leading the Hillary Clinton email probe despite alleged conflicts of interest.

Appointed by James Comey, McCabe led the FBI investigation that determined Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted for her mishandling of classified emails. McCabe’s wife had reportedly received $700,000 for her unsuccessful Virginia senate campaign from close Clinton ally Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe. (McAuliffe was also said to be under FBI investigation regarding campaign contributions from a Chinese businessman. He has not been charged and has denied any wrongdoing.)

Latest: News reports say McCabe will retire in early March when he’s eligible for his full pension.

Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director

“Reassigned”: James Baker, FBI General Counsel

James Baker, FBI General Counsel

Reportedly under IG investigation for allegedly improperly leaking information.

Baker also served as counsel for McCabe during Congressional questioning. Separately, Baker was allegedly in contact with a reporter who published the first story about an anti-Trump “dossier” alleging ties between Trump and Russia. (The reporter denies Baker was a source.) The dossier was presented shortly before the election as if it were an intelligence investigative file. But it turned out to be political opposition research funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Congress is investigating whether the FBI improperly used the dossier to convince a secret court to authorize wiretaps to surveil Trump associates. The FBI reportedly secretly offered to pay the author of the dossier to keep pursuing leads after the election, but the deal wasn’t ultimately consummated.

Latest: Baker has reportedly been reassigned. His supporters have told reporters the reassignment is unrelated to the investigations and that he did nothing wrong.

“Transferred”: Peter Strzok, the top FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team

Peter Strzok, FBI official

Alleged anti-Trump political bias.

Strzok is identified as the FBI official who softened language and watered down key findings in the Clinton email probe. He was the top FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion and number two in FBI Counterintelligence office during Hillary Clinton email investigation. Strzok oversaw FBI interviews with Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (who plead guilty to lying to the FBI).

While Strzok worked on the Trump-Russia investigation, the Inspector General unearthed anti-Trump text messages Strzok had exchanged with FBI attorney Lisa Page, a fellow member of Mueller’s team with whom Strzok was reportedly having an illicit affair.

Latest: Strzok was ousted from Mueller’s team and transferred to human resources in August after the controversial anti-Trump text messages were discovered.

Shifted: Lisa Page, FBI lawyer and McCabe senior adviser

Alleged anti-Trump political bias.

Page was on the FBI Mueller team investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion. She had exchanged anti-Trump text messages with Strzok, the top FBI agent on Mueller’s team, with whom she was reportedly having an illicit affair.

Latest: Page left the Mueller team last summer. Reports say the move was unrelated to the controversy.

Excerpts from text exchanges between FBI couple Strzok and Page who served on the Mueller team investigating Trump:Page: “I cannot believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual, serious candidate for president” and “God(,) Trump is a loathsome human.”

Page: “I just saw my first Bernie Sander [sic] bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car.”

Strzok: “He’s an idiot like Trump. Figure they cancel each other out.”

Strzok called Trump “awful” and “an idiot” and said Clinton should win “100,000,000-0.’’

Strzok on Election Day when he learned Trump could win: “f*****g terrifying.”

Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s [believed to refer to McCabe] office that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.’’

Page texted that she hoped Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan “fails and crashes in a blaze of glory.” Strzok replied that Republicans need “to pull their head out of that *ss. Shows no sign of occurring any time soon.”

Fired: James Comey, FBI Director under President Obama

Comey originally served under George W. Bush and briefly under President Trump. Once he was fired by Trump in May 2017, Comey secretly leaked a memo to the press to engineer the appointment of a special counsel to investigate alleged Trump-Russia collusion.

James Comey, former FBI Director

“Demoted”: Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice

Bruce Ohr, Justice Dept. official; Photo courtesy C-SPAN

Alleged improper political conflicts.

Bruce Ohr arranged to meet with the co-founder Fusion GPS, the political opposition research firm that compiled the anti-Trump “dossier,” according to court filings. Fusion GPS also hired Ohr’s wife, Nellie.

Latest: Ohr still works at the Justice Department, but was reportedly recently removed as associate deputy attorney general.

Investigator: Robert Mueller

Special Counsel investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion in 2016 US election. Former FBI Director 2001-2013 under Bush and Obama. Mueller served as FBI Director under Comey when Comey was a top Bush Justice Department official.

Robert Mueller, former FBI Director, Special Counsel investigating alleged Trump-Russia collusion

Investigator: Michael Horowitz

Obama-appointed Department of Justice Inspector General investigating a wide range of alleged misconduct within FBI and Department of Justice.

Michael Horowitz, Department of Justice Inspector General