Unfortunately, this simple statement often achieves its goal of obstructing efforts by Congress to obtain information. While Congress may be upset with the response, many times, it is cowed into accepting presidents can protect their people from being investigated for criminal conduct. Fortunes, however, can be reversed. If Republicans win the White House with a presidential candidate who sincerely wants to uphold the rule of law, restore justice to the legal system and hold the “Deep State” accountable, that president can make it happen.

The leading Presidential candidates for the Republican nomination have promised to fire the FBI director and clean house at the Department of Justice. If a Republican wins the presidency in November 2024, FBI Director Wary and AG Garland will resign long before they can be fired. So, candidates, please, stop pandering. No one will be fired. All pablum, worthless and oversimplified promises.

Suppose a new president truly wants to clean up the deep, dark, corrupt state at the DOJ and FBI. In that case, the Republican president need only waive Executive Privilege and issue an Executive Order declassifying all investigatory materials sought by the current Republican House of Representatives. Let Congress bleed the truth out of those subverting the Constitution.

Executive compliance is simple. When Congress requests documents, the Executive should order them produced. When testimony is sought, provide it without asserting objections. Cooperate with the Republican House to find the truth.

Since the Nixon administration, presidents have asserted Executive Privileges thirty times to block congressional investigations. Presidential assertions included protecting the president’s brother (Billy Carter), girlfriends (Monica Lewinsky), mismanagement of funds (Solyndra), foreign affairs (Benghazi), gun running (fast and furious), and the Watergate tapes. Democrat and Republican administrations act as if providing Congress with requested information concerning an investigation will somehow diminish their manhood.

Finding and eliminating corruption is for the benefit of the nation. Hiding corruption does not assist the president in the faithful execution of the law. The DOJ/FBI’s long-running minuet of never sharing information with congressional committees is a mechanism of deceit, not of protecting the independence and effectiveness of law enforcement, the identities of informants, avoiding pre-trial publicity, or interfering with prosecutorial discretion. The Supreme Court has long recognized the “…implied power [of Congress] to investigate and to compel the production of information” from the Executive branch.

“Executive Privilege for presidential communications is limited to the quintessential power and nondelegation of Presidential power, and those are the core functions in the Constitution.” It should only be asserted to preserve those core constitutional functions. Claiming it beyond the core constitutional functions is a delaying tactic that often allows illegal conduct to continue.

As to declassifying all documents related to alleged criminal activity in the Executive branch, no president should ever be intentionally or unintentionally covering it up. The American Bar Association writes, “Under the U.S. Constitution, the president as commander in chief is given broad powers to classify and declassify such information, often through executive orders.” While there are procedures for declassifying the materials, a president, except for certain materials such as nuclear secrets, has almost total control to declassify records by Executive Order. Presidents at all times have the power to put sunlight on government corruption. When they choose not to expose corruption, it is an intentional coverup.

Unfortunately, since the Nixon administration in the early 1970s, the Executive branch has forced Congress to issue subpoenas to secure requested documents. Presidents achieve their goal of protecting corruption by requiring years of legal battles to enforce the subpoena.

Hopefully, there will be a Republican Congress, or at least a Republican House sworn in on January 3, 2025, and on January 20, 2025, a Republican president. Between January 3, 2025, and January 20, 2025, the Republican Congress can prepare the appropriate investigative letters to the incoming president requesting the information needed to root out corruption in the DOJ/FBI. On January 20, when the Republican president enters the White House, his first order of business should be to issue an Executive Order waiving Executive privilege and formally declassifying the documents relating to all congressional investigations. These waivers should encompass all alleged DOJ/FBI corruption as described in the Durham Report, Mueller and Horowitz Reports, payments received by Joe and Hunter Biden from foreign countries, all matters associated with the development of a two-tier system of justice, efforts by the federal government to force social media companies to manipulate information distributed to the public and all other matters of high-level DOJ and FBI corruption.

By taking this approach, the president will tremendously assist the congressional investigation of the DOJ/FBI misconduct without investigating the departments he leads. If Congress finds evidence of criminal activity, it will refer the evidence to new appointees at a DOJ for appropriate prosecution.

Suppose Executive branch personnel refuse to testify or take the Fifth to protect their constitutional rights. In that case, Congress can grant the Use Immunity, which compels their testimony but provides immunity to the witness for the new information provided. A witness that refuses to testify after being given Use Immunity can be cited for contempt of Congress and imprisoned.

It’s time the federal government gets serious about corruption in government. More intriguing would be if a president followed this advice. The nation might uncover who is running the Deep State.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Big Govt Lie: “I Can’t Answer, the Matter Is Under Investigation.” appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Chuck Ross

Four federal prosecutors with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., withdrew from Roger Stone’s case on Tuesday amid turmoil surrounding a prison sentence recommendation for the longtime Trump confidante.

Aaron Zelinsky, who handled several of the most prominent cases in the special counsel’s probe, and Jonathan Kravis, an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., filed notices of their withdrawals with Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who oversaw Stone’s trial. Prosecutors Adam Jed and Michael Marando also withdrew.

Zelinsky said in his filing that he “resigned effective immediately” as a special assistant U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. According to CNN, he remains a federal prosecutor for the U.S. attorney’s office in Baltimore, where he worked before joining the special counsel’s team in 2017.

Kravis said in his filing, which he submitted shortly after Zelinsky, that he “has resigned as an Assistant United States Attorney and therefore no longer represents” the government in the Stone case.

Hours before the dual withdrawals, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that the agency plans to revise federal prosecutors’ recommendation that Stone serve up to nine years in prison on false statements and witness tampering charges.

Federal prosecutors in Washington, D.C., recommended that Stone serve between 87 and 108 months in prison on the charges.

President Donald Trump blasted the recommendation in a series of tweets early Tuesday morning, and indicated he is considering a pardon for Stone.

He called the recommendation “disgraceful,” and said he “cannot allow this miscarriage of justice.”

A Justice Department official issued a surprising rebuke of the D.C. attorney’s offices’ recommendation, calling it “extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate.”

The official also said the recommendation was “not what had been briefed to the Department.”

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment about Zelinsky and Kravis’s withdrawals from the Stone case.

Zelinsky worked on several components of the sprawling special counsel’s probe. He was involved in the prosecution of former Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos. In the Stone probe, Zelinsky interviewed and investigated Randy Credico and Jerome Corsi, two Stone associates who prosecutors suspected might have been a link between Stone and WikiLeaks.

Witnesses and attorneys who dealt with Zelinsky described him to the Daily Caller News Foundation as among the most aggressive prosecutors they dealt with on the special counsel’s team.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been updated with additional prosecutors who withdrew from Stone’s case. 

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Four Federal Prosecutors Withdraw From Roger Stone Case Amid Turmoil Over Prison Recommendation appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

President Trump tweeted about the SCOTUS’ decision Friday calling it a victory for both border security and the rule of law.

“Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!”

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco which had blocked the Trump administration from using military funding to deliver on one of his biggest campaign promises, according to Fox News.

The ruling to allow the Defense Department to use money for the wall was split along ideological lines in a 5-4 decision, according to CNN. The liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan wrote they would have blocked funding for now. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a split opinion, agreeing in part with both the left and right-leaning members of the court and saying he would allow government funds to finalize terms for contractors, but block funds from contributing to the wall’s actual construction.

The Department of Justice was happy with the SCOTUS ruling on Friday.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border,” Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said in a statement. “We will continue to vigorously defend the Administration’s efforts to protect our Nation.”, according to Fox News.

However, not everyone shares the same enthusiasm over the nation’s highest court’s ruling.

Fox News reported the ACLU voiced their distaste for the decision and vowed to fight to ensure it will be overturned.

“This is not over,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall. Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied.”

For now, it appears President Trump is winning his fight against Congressional Democrats over funding for his border wall; a battle which is proving to be hard-fought, and previously resulted in the government being shut down for 35 days.

As the saga unfolds, it remains to be seen if President Trump will fulfill one of his biggest campaign promises as the 2020 election approaches.

The post Trump Victory: SCOTUS Approves Use of Military Funds for Border Wall appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Politicians from both sides of the aisle are extremely concerned about the rising number of opioid-related deaths—and for good reason. Approximately 130 Americans die from an opioid-related overdose every day. In 2017, the number of opioid-related overdoses was six times higher than it was in 1999. The question is no longer whether we have an opioid epidemic; it is how we address it.

Safe Injection Sites

In order to try to combat this issue, people are considering opening up safe injection sites. These are places where individuals can come to test the quality of their drugs, obtain sterile injection equipment, and inject their drugs under medical supervision.

While these sites are new to the US, they have become common practice in many other countries around the world. Canada has the oldest safe injection site in North America, Insite, which has been in operation since 2003.

Insite and efforts like it have seen fairly remarkable success. Research shows that they significantly decrease overdoses without increasing the amount of drug use. Insite has not experienced one overdose in the entire 15-year period they have been in operation.

Efforts like these are just now gaining traction in the United States. Cities like San Francisco and Philadelphia have recently made efforts to establish safe injection facilities. So why haven’t they started operating yet? The answer is fairly simple: there is a strong possibility that they are currently illegal.

United States Code Title 21, Section 865, makes it unlawful to

knowingly open, lease, rent, use, or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.

This is a fairly obscure section of the Controlled Substances Act that was added at the height of the crack epidemic and is commonly known as the “Crack House” statute. It was intended to discourage people from allowing their homes to be used for drug-related purposes.

Do They Harm Society?

So why are safe injection sites so afraid that they are violating a statute that was clearly passed for an entirely different purpose? The answer lies with the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In 2018, Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, published an op-ed in The New York Times titled “Fight Drug Abuse, Don’t Subsidize It.” In this article, Mr. Rosenstein made an argument for why he thinks safe injection sites are harmful to society. However, he did not stop with advocacy. Mr. Rosenstein specifically said that “cities and counties should expect the Department of Justice to meet the opening of any injection site with swift and aggressive action.” He made it clear that anyone hoping to open and operate a safe injection site would face strong opposition from the DOJ. And he was not bluffing.

On February 5, 2019, United States Attorney William M. McSwain filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking a declaratory judgment against Safehouse, a safe injection site set to open in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as well as against Jeanette Bowles, its executive director. The complaint asks the court to declare safe injection sites illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. The federal government is sending a clear signal: if you try to open up a safe injection site, they will prosecute you.

So why is the federal government so against the establishment of safe injection sites? If you ask Mr. Rosenstein, it’s because these sites “create serious public safety risks” and “destroy the surrounding community.” However, as we have seen, the evidence leans strongly against the conclusion that safe injections sites pose more public safety risks than they alleviate or that they destroy the communities that surround them. The more likely reason for this strong opposition is that safe injection sites undermine the DOJ’s position that drug use should be treated as a crime rather than a public health issue.

Safe injection sites are built on the premise that our goal should be to reduce the harm caused by drugs—not to punish those who use them. This stands in stark contrast to the DOJ’s position that it is not the harm caused by drugs but drug use itself that we should work to combat. If they allow safe injection sites to open and they achieve the same success they have in the past, this would serve as a huge blow to the DOJ’s current position. People may begin to think that it is the harm caused by drugs—and not drug use in and of itself—that is actually the issue.

Regardless of the true intent behind these actions, it is clear that the DOJ plans to fight safe injection sites tooth and nail. This will serve as a major hindrance for people who are trying to find evidence-based, practical solutions for combating the opioid crisis. It remains to be seen how the court will rule on safe injection sites and whether or not they violate federal law, but the DOJ’s aggressive actions send a definite signal to those hoping to open up one of these facilities: expect fierce opposition.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Safe Injection Sites Save Lives, so Why Does the DOJ Want to Ban Them? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Luke Rosiak on January 29, 2019

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions has joined the Worldwide Speakers Group, which provides paid celebrity speakers for “the global lecture industry to corporate, trade, education, and commercial customers worldwide.”

Sessions is seeking audiences who want to pay $25,000 to $40,000 to hear him lecture, according to Worldwide Speakers Group’s website (WSG).

The website lists several speeches Sessions wants to give including “Challenges to the Rule of law” and “The Real Meaning of the ‘Trump Agenda.”

Jeff Sessions Worldwide Speakers Group screenshot

Sessions has been absent from the news since Trump fired him unceremoniously hours after the mid-term elections in November.

“I put in an attorney general who never took control of the Justice Department,” Trump said in August.

But rather than return to his native Alabama, the WSG profile says he will be traveling from Washington, D.C., to do speeches.

Politico said in November that Sessions might run for his old Senate seat in Alabama, which fell into Democratic hands after the Republican candidate was accused of improper behavior with teenage girls.

But if some hope to hear laments about Trump’s interactions with him as head of the DOJ, they might blanch at his other speeches, such as one focused on “ending the illegality” in immigration and admitting people who are “likely to flourish here.”

During Sessions’ confirmation, he was accused him of racism.

Follow Luke on Twitter. Send tips to luke@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Read his new book: “Obstruction of Justice.”Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Jeff Sessions Looks To Pull In $40k On The Speaker’s Circuit appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Nick Givas on December 14, 2018

NBC legal analyst Daniel Goldman claimed President Donald Trump committed a felony to win the presidency on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday.

“I think legally we already now know that the president has committed a felony in order to obtain the office of the presidency,” Goldman said.

He also said Trump will avoid charges for his actions because former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen refuses to fully cooperate with prosecutors.

“He will likely not be charged with that. And in part, he’s not going to be charged because even if he could be, forget about the DOJ policy, Michael Cohen decided not to fully cooperate with the southern district of New York. So he’s not a witness available to them right now,” Goldman continued.

“If he really wanted to get this over with and get back to his family, he would have fully cooperated, agreed to be a witness, agreed to postpone his sentencing, so he could get an even more reduced sentence. And for some unknown reason to us, he is not doing that,” he said.

Cohen claimed Trump knew he was breaking the law when he made payments to women whom he allegedly was having extramarital affairs with. Trump has continually denied the affairs, while publicly criticizing Cohen

You can Follow Nick on Twitter

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2018 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post NBC Legal Analyst Claims Trump Committed A Felony To Win The White House appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Though recently, cryptocurrencies have caught the eyes of DOJ for another reason; market price manipulation.

The lack of regulation on most free market e-currencies has caused the DOJ to investigate potential illegal trading tactics in Bitcoin and Etheruem markets.  The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates derivatives related to Bitcoin, is looking into possible trade collusion, spoofing and wash trading. Explanations of these terms follow.

“Spoofing” is putting in a buy order to create false optimism or artificial demand. The idea behind spoofing is to draw in investors to inflate the price to then sell later on; leaving the late investors with an overpriced security, stock, or in this case, cryptocurrency.

Similarly, “wash trading” is the same investor making many trades; both buying and selling, to create artificial activity. The idea is to increase trading volume which seemingly gives more demand to the underlying asset.

Regulators have tried to root out these trading techniques on traditional markets like wall street. Though Bitcoin’s anonymity has made it trickier for regulators to spot illegal activity. Early investors know market manipulation is not a new trend in cryptocurrency markets. Cryptocurrencies have often been victim to artificial inflation. Commonly referred to as a “pump and dump”, many investors will wait for this artificial inflation to peak, then sell. This leaves late adopters with nothing but false promises of getting rich. Though many investors fear impending regulation on cryptocurrencies, some are looking at this crackdown as a step in the right direction.

With the recent Bitconnect scandal (or rather scandals), this increase in regulation might actually help deter fraud in cryptocurrency marketplace. The Winklevoss twins, owners of the cryptocurrency exchange Gemini Trust Co., were a step ahead of regulators by hiring  Nasdaq Inc. last month to monitor potential illegal trading tactics on their exchange. Also, the Winklevoss twins urged other exchanges to follow in their footsteps to self-regulate their own industry. The last few months in the cryptocurrency marketplace have been a bumpy or “pumpy and dumpy” road. Though, these are potholes the government seems to actually care about and are trying to fill as cryptocurrencies continue to grow in technological importance and fiscal power.

The post DOJ Launches Investigation into E-currencies over Price Manipulation appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Kevin Daley

George Conway III has withdrawn from consideration for an appointment in the Department of Justice (DOJ), telling senior administration officials he prefers to stay in the private sector for the immediate future.

Conway is the husband of Trump’s senior advisor Kellyanne Conway. He currently practices law at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, a powerhouse law firm based in New York City, where he specializes in securities and corporate law. Earlier rumors suggested the Trump administration was preparing to name him solicitor general, the nation’s top appeals lawyer, before the Wall Street Journal announced in March that Conway would be tapped to lead the DOJ’s civil division.

Reuters reports that Conway informed friends and colleagues of his intentions in a short statement:

I am profoundly grateful to the President and to the Attorney General for selecting me to serve in the Department of Justice. I have reluctantly concluded, however, that, for me and my family, this is not the right time for me to leave the private sector and take on a new role in the federal government. Kellyanne and I continue to support the President and his Administration, and I look forward to doing so in whatever way I can from outside the government.

The civil division defends the federal government in criminal and civil proceedings, pursues fraud prosecutions to recover federal funds, handles complex, multi-jurisdictional litigation, and supervises the removal of illegal aliens.

Above the Law’s David Lat speculates that Conway might now angle for an appointment to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. There are two vacancies on the court, and few serious contenders for the nominations.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Kellyanne Conway’s Husband Withdraws From DOJ Post appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Ted Goodman

Former FBI Director James Comey may have been building a legal case against President Donald Trump well before the president fired him on May 9, according to a former Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson.

Matthew Miller, who served as the DOJ’s Director of the Office of Public Affairs under former Attorney General Eric Holder, suggested that Comey may have been building an obstruction of justice case against the president, in an interview with the Washington Post.

Miller’s suggestion carries weight not just because of his extensive background at DOJ and in government, but also because he predicted that Comey left a paper trail of his interactions with Trump. Miller sent the following tweet five days before the New York Times reported that Comey wrote a memo indicating the president had asked him to end an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

While Miller said it is standard practice for an FBI director to record potentially inappropriate conversations and behavior, Comey could have taken a different approach when speaking with the president.

“I keep wondering, something in the back of my head keeps saying to me, maybe Comey was actually trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case against the president here,” Miller told WaPo.

He explained that when Trump allegedly made the request to end the investigation of Flynn in February, Comey could have immediately warned the president that the conversation was inappropriate and that a request like that should never be made again.

“But if you’re trying to build an obstruction-of-justice case, you might want the president to keep talking, because everything he does is digging a deeper legal hole for himself,” Miller suggested. He also speculaed that Comey may have stayed on, instead of resigning as Trump’s FBI director, in order to dig that hole a little deeper. “Comey might have wanted him to keep talking to see what he says,” he posited.

Miller agreed with the president that Comey is a “showboat,” which is another reason he believes Comey may be coming after Trump.

“You just look at his [Comey’s] actions in the [Hillary] Clinton case, where he made himself the central player when there was no reason for him to be the central player,” Miller said. “That aside, his entire history shows that he likes to be at the center of attention.”

Miller claimed that its still unknown who leaked the Comey memo to The New York Times and admitted that it is unclear what the goal was.

“But if you were really looking to damage the president,” he added, “you wouldn’t leak the most damaging memo first. So who knows what comes next?”

Send Tips to ted@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Former DOJ Spox: Comey Is Trying To Take Down Trump appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

By Kevin Daley

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s letter detailing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) rationale for calling for the dismissal of former FBI Director James Comey is heavy on professional grievance.

The memo, submitted to President Donald Trump on Tuesday, strongly suggests that officials at the Justice Department felt Comey improperly assumed prerogatives that rightly belong to career prosecutors at DOJ, instigating a bureaucratic turf war that left department officials displeased.

The memo opens with Rosenstein’s conclusion that Comey’s press conference on July 5, 2016, where he announced he would not recommend criminal charges over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, “usurped” the authority of his superiors at the Justice Department.

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 findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department.

The use of terms like “usurp” and “supplant” are both arresting and telling, as is Rosenstein’s assertion that Comey effectively “assumed command” of DOJ. This section of the memo argues Comey’s public statements stripped DOJ officials of prosecutorial discretion. In disclosing legal conclusions to the public, the former director foreclosed a number of options for department officials, leaving them little choice but to decline to pursue a case against Clinton. What’s more, the memo also states it was improper for Comey, whose role is restricted to finding facts, to reach any legal conclusions in the first place.

The thrust of this section of the letter is that Comey overstepped his bounds and made decisions, which were the province of the Justice Department, to the chagrin of many inside the agency. One might also reasonably speculate that many in DOJ’s non-political career staff share Rosentein’s conclusions. Rosenstein himself is a product of the career bureaucracy, and is respected in all quarters of DOJ.

A recent Politico Magazine piece on Comey’s political isolation seems to corroborate the possibility of widespread displeasure with the embattled director. The piece includes several quotes from aggrieved and anonymous sources inside the department impugning Comey’s integrity.

“He seemed to think that what was good for Comey is good for the institution. That’s jarring,” one senior Justice Department official said.

“He’s rapturous of his own righteousness,” said another.

Elsewhere in the memo, Rosenstein invokes terms like “tradition” and “longstanding principles,” which seem to reinforce his contentions about the scope of the department’s power, over and against law enforcement agencies under its supervision. To this end, the memo also includes quotes from former DOJ officials vindicating the deputy AG’s assertions — though at least one of those officials disavowed the memo to BuzzFeed News as a thin veneer for a political dismissal.

The possibility of inter-agency conflict is only a small part of this story, which is certain to drive news for the coming weeks. Still, it suggests more is afoot here than appearances suggest.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Send tips to kevin@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post Comey Dismissal Memo Suggests Turf War Between DOJ, FBI appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.