Difference between revisions of "Michael Bromwich"

Revision as of 00:07, October 31, 2018

Michael S. Bromwich is a former Clinton administration Department of Justice Inspector General.

The announcement by the Justice Department’s inspector general that his office will look into FBI Director James B. Comey's handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails reopens painful questions about the 2016 election, but it is also welcome news. The country needs this — an objective, independent and thorough investigation of issues that have roiled the country for months and continue to stir heated debate.

The investigation will address allegations that Comey violated established Justice Department and FBI policies and procedures in his July 5, 2016, public announcement concerning the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And it will explore allegations that Comey’s Oct. 28 and Nov. 6 letters to Congress, which jolted the presidential election — and may have changed its outcome — were improper. The impact of Comey’s actions can never be definitively known. But it is important, for the Justice Department and for the country, to obtain a detailed accounting of what happened and why; to assign blame where it is warranted; and to understand how similar situations can be prevented.

In addition to looking into the actions of the FBI director regarding the email investigation, the probe will look into whether the FBI’s deputy director [McCabe] should have recused himself from the investigation because of his wife’s political involvement; whether a high-ranking Justice Department official or others improperly disclosed non-public information to both the Clinton and Trump campaigns; and whether the timing of the FBI’s election eve Freedom of Information Act disclosures relating to Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of Marc Rich was based on inappropriate considerations.^[1]

Bromwich later was hired to defend McCabe.

Kavanaugh smear

From left to right: Debra Katz, Monica McLean, Christine Blasey Ford and Michael Bromwich.
Courtesy theconservativetreehouse.com

Main article: Kavanaugh smear

Lawyer conduct

During testimony, the Committee learned Dr.Blasey Ford's attorneys had withheld from her the fact that Committee staff investigators were willing to travel to California to obtain sworn testimony and maintain confidential information.^[2] By not informing their client, the attorneys forced a public hearing of her allegations against her wishes.

Her lawyers also claimed to have the results of a polygraph examination in the form of audio, video and charts attesting to the veracity of her allegations which they refused to share with the Committee. Chairman Chuck Grassley demanded material evidence relevant to allegations the attorneys claimed to have had against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.^[3][4]

The Judiciary Committee issued a statement suggesting that Blasey Ford's legal team may have violated the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct by apparently withholding key information from their client.^[5] Blasey Ford's attorneys may face sanctions by the DC Bar Association.^[6]

On October 30, 2018 Judicial Watch filed a complaint to the Board of Professional Responsibility of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich for violating the rules of professional responsibility in their representation of Dr. Blasey Ford before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Kavanaugh nomination hearings.^[7]

See also

References