Misconduct Assistant United States Attorney investigative summary October 2, 2019, US Justice Dept IG, Improperly disclosed grand jury materials to unauthorized individual
“Robert Mueller, like Andrew McCabe and the rest of the anti-Trump criminal conspirators, consider themselves above the law and on a divine mission to unseat Trump. Mueller’s conflicts of interest, starting with his relationship with James Comey, are well documented. His role, along with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, in covering up the FBI’s early investigation into Russia’s nuclear bribery in the Uranium One case are also a matter of public record.”…American Thinker Dec. 19, 2017
“McCabe had a role in crafting the “insurance policy” in the event Mr. Trump was elected. Expect to find Comey a part of that also.”…Attorney Sydney Powell
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
From the office of The Inspector General, US Justice Department October 2, 2019.
Findings of Misconduct by a then Assistant United States Attorney for Improperly Disclosing Grand Jury Materials to an Unauthorized Individual
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia (USAO-DC) regarding allegations that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), who is no longer employed by DOJ, improperly disclosed District of Columbia Superior Court grand jury materials to an unauthorized individual.
The OIG investigation substantiated the allegation that the AUSA improperly disclosed Superior Court grand jury materials to an unauthorized individual, in violation of the Code of the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Criminal prosecution of this matter was declined.
The OIG has provided its report to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), and the USAO-DC for appropriate action.
Unless otherwise noted, the OIG applies the preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether DOJ personnel have committed misconduct.”
Let’s see, who could it be this time.
So many choices.