Elder Patriot – U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C., Jessie K. Liu, has been the protective firewall within the DOJ that corrupt elements of D.C. Swamp have relied on for virtual immunity from punishment for their felony criminal actions:
- The manipulated DC legal case surrounding the Awan brothers; and how they escaped full accountability, likely due to the need to protect corrupt members of the Democrats’ House Caucus. The sweetheart plea deal.
- The manipulated DC legal case surrounding SSCI Security Director James Wolfe; and how he was allowed to plea only to lying to investigators when the evidence was clear from the outset that he leaked classified information to his journalist concubine. Again, likely due to the need to protect corrupt members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The sweetheart plea deal.
- The manipulated DC legal case surrounding Obama lawyer Greg Craig and how he escaped accountability for FARA violations by running out the statute of limitations and burying Mueller’s evidence for 18 months. Again, likely due to the need to the Obama White House. Sweetheart double standards.
- The manipulated DC legal case, a non-filing, surrounding former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe for lying to INSD investigators about his media leaks. Again, likely due to the need to protect the administrative state. Criminal referral (April 19, 2018); grand jury (Approx. July 2018); Status?…
In April 2019, shortly after Bill Barr was confirmed as U.S. Attorney General, Jessie Liu’s name was withdrawn from consideration for the Number 3 spot at the Department of Justice.
Liu’s name was withdrawn from consideration exactly one week after Representatives Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows sent a letter to Attorney General William Barr requesting an update on the status of the criminal referral of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe that they had sent to the DOJ almost a year earlier.
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Liu had finally punted the decision, on whether to indict former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, back to Main Justice:
[…] what should have been a seemingly straightforward case with a limited number of witnesses and facts has dragged out amid internal deliberations. It has been under investigation for so long that the term expired for the grand jury hearing evidence.
U.S. Attorney, DC circuit, Jessie Liu has successfully stonewalled the prosecution of the case until now, despite overwhelming evidence presented in Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s 39-page report identifying McCabe as the primary architect of the FBI’s efforts to remove President Trump from office.
Passage from the OIG Report on McCabe’s wrongful behavior:
We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).
We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).
We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that, because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).
We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).
That ball is now in Attorney General Barr’s court.
How Barr decides to proceed, and in what timeframe his decisions are made, will tell us if he becomes a legendary figure in the history of U.S. law enforcement or, if he becomes one more disgraced protector of the DC sewer system.
American jurisprudence literally hangs in the balance.