I know Comey has made a comment or two on the Kavanaugh/Ford matter, he can’t keep his yap shut. But I do find it very interesting that Brennan and Clapper have been virtually silent. Very interesting.
Nope Brennan has tweeted about it and made public appearances.
He and Comey are in total violation of the public trust by even commenting on this.
“Uh oh. And Preet Bhahara is in this - SDNY “
*Speaking of Comey and Bhahara, McLean worked under both.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_for_the_Southern_District_of_New_York
James B. Comey: January 7, 2002 – December 15, 2003
David N. Kelley (Interim): December 15, 2003 – September 2005
Michael J. Garcia: September 2005 – December 1, 2008
Lev L. Dassin (Acting): December 1, 2008 – August 13, 2009
Preet Bharara: August 13, 2009 – March 11, 2017
*CBF retained McCabe’s attorney, Bromwich, “pro bono”.
(no link)
Politicizing professional responsibility at JusticeHide
Washington Times, The (DC) (Published as The Washington Times) - February 21, 1994
Edition: 2Section: ACOMMENTARYEDITORIALSPage: A20
It looks like the already fuzzy ethical sensibilities of the Clinton administration are about to get even fuzzier, with the nomination of Michael Bromwich as inspector general of the Justice Department.
Mr. Bromwich, a 40-year-old Harvard lawyer, former U.S. attorney in New York, and Clinton campaign volunteer, is best known for his service on Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh’s Iran-Contra staff. In his four years there, from 1987 to 1990, he earned a not very pleasant reputation; the terms that come to the minds of those who dealt with him than are “mean,” “acerbic” and “nasty.” He also earned a charge of prosecutorial misconduct from Oliver North’s attorney, Brendan Sullivan. During the North trial, Mr. Sullivan accused Mr. Bromwich of deliberately withholding from Col. North’s defense team the information that some classified documents had been leaked to the radically pro-Sandinista, anti-Reagan administration Christic Institute, and of “incredibly, insist[ing] that the court and the defense treat these already-public documents as classified.” The charge didn’t stick; Judge Gerhard Gesell bought Mr. Bromwich’s argument that he’d simply forgotten to mention the leakage to the defense. But though he didn’t find Mr. Bromwich guilty of misconduct, the judge did chastise him for letting the matter “slip his mind.”
Now, such convenient absentmindedness aside, a mean, nasty and acerbic guy like Mr. Bromwich might seem the ideal candidate for an inspector generalship. The trouble is, Attorney General Janet Reno intends to give the IG’s office under Mr. Bromwich more power than it’s ever had in its five-year existence. The plan is to consolidate the Office of the Inspector General and the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). OPR is responsible for investigating department attorneys and criminal investigators, while the IG handles other personnel and audits department programs. Since the IG was instituted in 1988, there have been numerous jurisdictional disputes between the two offices; so some “streamlining.” as Justice officials have describe d it, may well be in order.
The question is, why give the IG control over OPR, rather than the other way around? OPR, after all, has traditionally been run by a career employee; in fact, the current one, Michael E. Shaheen Jr., has been in charge for the past 18 years. Is it wise, is it ethical, to hand over all internal investigative powers to a political appointee - who serves at the pleasure of, and frequently focuses on the interests of, the president?
It certainly seems neither wise nor ethical, given the current state of affairs at Justice. The fact is that the department figures prominently in many of the ethical lapses that have been bedeviling this administration. From Travelgate to Whitewatergate to Fostergate, the actions of Justice Department personnel (most notably Associate Attorney General and Hillary law partner Webster Hubbell) need some serious looking into. Can Michael Bromwich be trusted to do that job?
(snip)
*Kav’s comment, “revenge on behalf of the Clintons”, is beginning to make sense.