After more than eight years of Democrat lawfare against President Trump, his aides and his allies, the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi is bringing much-needed accountability \u2014 which is what American voters demanded in our last presidential election. But Democrat activist judges are doing what they do best: weaponization and sabotage.<\/p>\n
In South Carolina, Clinton-appointed Judge Cameron Currie \u2014 handpicked by a Biden-appointed judge \u2014 wrongly disqualified Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, the bold and fearless prosecutor who had secured an indictment against former FBI Director James Comey for lying and obstruction of a Senate investigation into his politicization, weaponization, and corruption of the intel agencies and law enforcement to go after political enemies and protect political allies. The government is appealing that decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, another Clinton-appointed judge in the District of Columbia, Colleen Kollarr-Kotelly, has interfered even more egregiously with the government\u2019s case. This ruling threatens the separation of powers essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.<\/p>\n
Comey was indicted on two charges: making false statements to Congress and obstruction of Congress. The indictment stemmed from the events surrounding Operation Crossfire Hurricane, more colloquially known as the Russiagate hoax. Comey used his longtime friend, Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman, as a conduit to leak material unfavorable to President Trump to media outlets. 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 on a government email account enjoy no reasonable expectation of privacy \u2014 the standard under the Fourth Amendment as a result of Justice Harlan\u2019s concurrence in Katz v. United States (1967) \u2014 because the government can monitor its own email servers.<\/p>\n
Six years ago, even Obama-appointed Judge James Boasberg, a judicial disgrace about whom we often have written, signed a warrant authorizing the search and seizure of emails on Richman\u2019s computer and iCloud account and his account at Columbia. Richman was able to review all emails and withhold the information he deemed privileged from all but one account. Now, Richman \u2014 who was the recipient of many emails from Comey and the sender of many emails to him \u2014 has sought to reclaim those emails pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g). This rule allows an individual to ask a court to reclaim his property obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and\/or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Shockingly, Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and has ordered the FBI to destroy the emails by 4 p.m. on Monday. Kollar-Kotelly\u2019s ruling ordered the destruction of emails obtained pursuant to a warrant signed by another (Obama) judge six years ago. She claims that the seized information relates to a new investigation; however, she is basing this assertion on a decision by Eastern District of Virginia U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick issued a suppression-like decision even though suppression was not briefed by the parties \u2014 yet another example of blatant and unlawful judicial sabotage by partisans in robes.<\/p>\n
Collar-Kotelly has ordered that a copy of the emails be given to Biden-appointed Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in Virginia. This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly\u2019s horrible ruling. The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie\u2019s dismissal ruling survives on appeal. The statute-of-limitations law allows the government only six months after an indictment\u2019s dismissal, suspended during the appellate process, to seek a new indictment. The inability to view this evidence would substantially increase the time necessary to seek an indictment. Even if a higher court reverses Currie, the government\u2019s inability to review the emails to use as evidence and prepare for trial would massively hamper its case.<\/p>\n