Breaking: The Memo-Related DOJ Rats Are Beginning to Jump Ship to Avoid Prosecution


by Dave Hodges, The Common Sense Show:

Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General at the Department of Justice Department, is stepping down after nine months on the job, the NYT reports. Brand was hired in her position at the DJ in May 2017. After only nine months on the job, Brand was seen as Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s successor. has abruptly resigned and is leaving her role for a position as general counsel at Walmart.

This is an earth-shattering development that, as of this date, is getting absolutely no attention. However, this is potentially the break in the log jam which has prevented President Trump from prosecuting the people behind the phony and criminal Russian Dossier as well the illegally obtained FISA memos.

The Significance of the Following Cannot Be Overstated

We already know that Rosenstein is  overseeing Robert Mueller’s investigation of the Russian-Collusion-Delusion with regard to President Trump’s alleged participation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. President Trump has, from the beginning of the investigation, had referred to the investigation a “witch hunt” and has considered terminating Rosenstein. from his DOJ position. At the DOJ, Brand directly reported to Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions who had previously recused himself for mysterious reasons which have never been made clear. This is one of the reasons I have demanded the Sessions step down because he is an impediment to any investigation into DOJ personnel wrongdoing.

As the third ranking member of the DOJ, and someone who reported directly to Rosenstein and Sessions, Brand was responsible for gathering so-called “evidence” against Trump for his meddling with Russians in the 2016 election. Now, for the bombshell. Brand had been assisting in an extension of the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program, this would be FISA, as in the exposed FISA surveillance program launched by Obama against the Trump campaign. This action was highly criminal and Bland has her hands dirty.

As contextual background, the memo’s contents and significance can be reviewed at the following:

  1. The implications.
  2. Clinton Foundation implications.
  3.  Hillary’s financial involvement with the Russians.
  4.  Mike Adams weighs in.

And there are literally thousands of accounts that implicate present and past FBI and DOJ officials in criminal wrongdoing with regard to the illegal FISA warrant connected to the Memos.

And now, Rachel Brand, as the number three person in the DOJ, jumps ship just nine months after being hired. Why did Bland resign now? This will all be made clear after reading the following paragraphs.

Can Rachel Bland Take the Fifth Amendment with Regard to the FISA Memo  at the DOJ?

Before all the DOJ rats jump off the ship because they know they are facing Congressional scrutiny and possible indictments over the release of the memos associated with the FISA memos, we need to consider how these potential criminals will attempt to escape justice.

The central question that needs to be asked is if federal employees can invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination while under a federal investigation? To answer that question, is both yes and no. But we first need to revisit a couple of past Obama-related controversies regarding federal investigations into federal employees for alleged malfeasance of office and criminal wrongdoing before drawing the correct conclusions.

The first case involved the Internal Revenue Service’s former head, Lois Lerner who was accused of using her position with the IRS to target members associated with various  Tea Party groups with prejudical IRS scrutiny allegedly performed because of the Tea Party members political activities which ran in opposition to the Obama administration.  Lois Lerner was subpoened to testify in front a congressional review and Lois Lerner refused to answer relevant questions related to the charge. Lois Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent before an abbreviated hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Did Lerner, back in 2013, as a federal employee, have a right to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights while under Congressional investigation? The answer, again, is both yes and no.  John Mahoney, who served as a partner in Tully Rinckey PLLC who stated, “…If a crime likely occurred and Ms. Lerner has any potential criminal exposure, then she has every right to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights to remain silent, unless she is granted what is called ‘use immunity’ from such prosecution by Justice based on her testimony.

In other words, if Lerner committed a crime, was an accessory to a crime, or engaged in obstruction of justice, she could be offered immunity for her testimony.  This testimony would no doubt be used to reel in a bigger fish (ie criminal) and this is the classic example of turning state’s evidence. In this case, Lerner would not have been allowed to invoke her right to avoid self-incrimination.

Representative Issa tried to compel Lerner’s testimony, possibly in exchange for a grant of immunity, but his efforts fell short. From all indications, Lerner was guilty as sin in the abuse of power that she was accused of. Lerner refused to cooperate. Congress had the goods on her, however, the DOJ was under the control of the hard line Democrats and then Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. The probability of a criminal conviction forcing a plea deal in this time frame, were slim and none and slim had already left town.  Therefore, Lerner was within her right to invoke the right against self-incrimination.

The Washington Post reported the following resolution to this case:

The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to hold a former Internal Revenue Service official in contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with an ongoing investigation into the agency’s special targeting of groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names that were seeking tax-exempt status.

On a 231 to  187 vote, the House approved a contempt citation against Lois G. Lerner, whose admission last year that the tax-enforcement agency had targeted conservative groups infuriated lawmakers in both parties, led to an overhaul of the IRS and Lerner’s eventual retirement from government service.

A very similar case, involving former Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast and Furious allegations that Holder directed the sales of American arms to Mexican drug cartels in an effort to impugn the Second Amendment. These transactions resulted in Holder being given a Contempt of Congress citation, just like Lerner. Unfortunately, no criminal charges were ever filed in either case because of the reasons listed above. But had either case happened under a Republican controlled Congress and with an Attorney General worth his/her salt, both parties would have gone to prison.

Connecting the Dots

There are a number of items that jump off the pages which are highly volatile to say the least. The continued criminal enterprise known as the Obama administration is on full display in this article and I did not even bring up Beghazi would have been the third leg in this investigation.

It is abundantly clear, that President Trump’s anticipated second Special Prosecutor is going to be launching a criminal probe into the DOJ. At the hub of this investigation would be Sessions, Rosenstein and Bland, the three top dogs in the DOJ. We now can safely assume that the reason that Sessions recused himself is because he feared this impending investigation would come and this would give him plausible deniability to any wrongdoing, or more to the point, his participation in any obstruction of justice charges.

Rosenstein is the central link to Special Prosecutor, Robert Mueller, in the now-proven phony Russian-Collusion-Delusion investigation. All the evidence from the “memo” had to flow through Rosenstein to get to Mueller. One could resonably assume that Rosenstein is guilty of obstruction. If he even suspected the fabricated evidence against Trump was not true, he had a fiduciary duty to report this to Sessions. Sessions, because he recused himself from this case, would have referred this to his supervisor, the President of the United States. Sessions successfully insulated himself from prosecution because he had the sense to see where this was potentially headed when he recused himself. Rosenstein is holding the bag and is in very big trouble. As as aside message to Attorney General Jeff Sessions who called and screamed at former Clinton operative, Larry Nichols, and falsely accused him of leaking sensitive information about himself to me, I answer that is not true. Mr. Nichols did not provide me with any relevant information in this case. However, Mr. Sessions, there were those who did speak to me off the record and pointed me in key directions which yielded information in this case. Larry Nichols was not one of these sources. Regardless, Mr. Attorney General, your days are numbered as the AG, as all of these facts are going to be exposed.

Read More @