Judge orders FBI to destroy emails in Comey obstruction investigation case

After more than eight years of Democrats’ legal war against President Trump, his aides and allies, the Justice Department under the leadership of the Attorney General… Pam Bondi It brings much-needed accountability – which is what American voters demanded in our recent presidential election. But the Democratic activist judges are doing what they do best: arming and sabotaging.

James Comey, Donald Trump (Getty Images)

In South Carolina, he was appointed by Clinton Judge Cameron Currie – Handpicked By a Biden-appointed judge – wrongly removed from the Eastern District of Virginia US Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the bold and courageous prosecutor who obtained an indictment against the former FBI Director James Comey On charges of lying and obstructing a Senate investigation into his politicization, weaponization, and corruption of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to pursue political enemies and protect political allies. The government is appealing this decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now another Clinton-appointed judge in the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, has intervened even more egregiously in the government’s case. This ruling threatens to sever the fundamental powers of the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court must immediately intervene.

Daniel Richman, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York, testifies before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on September 18, 2007, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Stephanie Kuykendall/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Comey was indicted On two counts: making false statements to Congress and obstructing Congress. The indictment stems from the events surrounding Operation Hurricane Crossfire, known colloquially as the Russiagate Hoax. Comey used his old friend, Columbia Law professor Daniel Richman, as a conduit to leak material unfavorable to President Trump to the media. In addition to being a law professor, Richman was a government contractor. He and Comey communicated frequently via email on government and private accounts. Communications via a government email account have no reasonable expectation of privacy—the standard under the Fourth Amendment as a result of Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States (1967)—because the government can monitor its own email servers.

Six years ago, even Obama-appointed Judge James Bosberg, a judicial disgrace about whom we often wrote, I signed a note Authorizing the search and seizure of emails on Richman’s computer, iCloud account, and his Columbia account. Richman was able to review all emails and redact information he considered privileged from all but one account. Now, Richman — who was the recipient of numerous emails from and the sender of numerous emails to Comey — has sought to recover those emails in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). This rule allows an individual to ask a court to restore his or her property that was obtained as a result of an unlawful search and/or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Court says BOASBERG didn’t know Arctic frost subpoenas hit lawmakers, calls Grassley ‘deeply troubling’

Shockingly, Kollar Koteli agreed to this proposal and ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4pm on Monday. Kolar Koteli’s ruling ordered the destruction of emails obtained under a warrant signed by another judge (Obama) six years ago. It claims that the information seized relates to a new investigation; However, it bases this assertion on a decision made by Judge William Fitzpatrick in the Eastern District of Virginia. Fitzpatrick issued a suppression-like resolution even though the parties were not informed of the suppression – another example of blatant and unlawful judicial subversion by robe-clad partisans.

Kollar ordered Kotely to turn over a copy of the emails to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the hearing. Comey case in Virginia. However, this redemption of a copy of the emails does not diminish the impact of Kollar Koteli’s dire ruling. The FBI and prosecutors will not be able to review it in their efforts to file a new indictment if… Corey’s dismissal still stands On appeal. The statute of limitations allows the government to seek a new indictment only six months after the indictment is dismissed, suspended during the appeals process. The inability to access this evidence would significantly increase the time required to seek an indictment. Even if a higher court overturns Currie’s decision, the government’s inability to review the emails for use as evidence and prepare for trial would significantly hamper her case.

The decision taken by Kollar Koteli is more disturbing because it implies separation of powers. Typically, Rule 41(g) applies when a defendant has wrongfully seized property and moves to repossess it. Here Comey is not seeking to recover anything; Richman, then a government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively on government business, is seeking this evidence. Richman turned to a partisan Democratic judge who was not even involved in the criminal case — not even in the same district — to destroy crucial evidence in that case in an apparent effort to help his friend Comey. Comey cannot appeal the arrest warrant against Richman because he lacks standing to do so. Incredibly, Kollar-Kotely suggested that Richman could move to quash this evidence in Virginia. She does her best to help Comey. Judges presiding over cases often dismiss evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, it is unusual for a different judge—particularly in a different district—to intervene and significantly obstruct a prosecution’s case based on a third-party allegation of unlawful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishes to use consists of communications between that third party and the defendant—a defendant who was a senior government official.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

The government got The evidence you wish to use against Comey under a lawful injunction, even if it was signed by a senior partisan judge appointed by Obama. Now, a Clinton-appointed judge who is not presiding over the case — and not even in the same district — is blatantly trying to help Comey by preventing the government from using that evidence to either reindict or prosecute Comey if the original indictment is returned. This provision contravenes the normal manner in which Rule 41(g) is applied. Judge Clinton’s astonishing timeline – demolition by tomorrow afternoon – also makes clear her agenda. It should have stayed a judgment of this size to allow the appeal process to continue. Instead, it has put the government in an incredibly precarious position: having to obtain a stay from the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court within a few hours. Kollar Koteli’s order had no legal basis, and a higher court must put an end to it.

The Kolar Koteli ruling is part of a larger pattern. Left-wing judges, like Obama-appointed D.C. Judge Tanya Chutkan — who presided over the case involving President Trump on January 6, Boasberg, who signed the national disgrace of Operation Arctic Frost — and many other Democratic judges have done nothing to stop it and done much to escalate the legal war against President Trump, his aides and allies. Now, the Department of Justice is seeking legal accountability for war crimes perpetrators like Comey. Currie and Kollar Koteli have sought to prevent – ​​or at least significantly reduce the chances of – such legal accountability occurring. Courts do not order the FBI to destroy evidence in pending investigations, except when the evidence would be harmful to a perpetrator of a lawful war crime like Comey. The inconsistency between the treatment given to perpetrators of lawful war crimes and the targets of lawful war threatens the legitimacy of the federal judiciary itself. If the Supreme Courts will not rein in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding of judicial appropriations, and accountability. A system where the judiciary empowers the law and then protects its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and the higher courts must put an end to it.