Draft Disbarment Inquiry Against DoJ's Michael Elston
Ref Michael J. Elston is innocent until proven guilty. The following is not a statement of fact, merely allegations; Elston has not been accused of any crime.
Ref Reed -- Check Constellation Project; Elston takes us into the first star.
It's serious business when a staff counsel assigned to the Department of Justice allegedly act in a reckless manner. Elston's alleged conduct raises serous questions about his integrity and fitness to continue practicing law. If proven true, his conduct appears to warrant disbarment for reckless breach of many attorney standards of conduct. The American legal community and especially the American public deserve to have nothing less that sterling service and highest standards of conduct from Staff counsel assigned to the Department of Justice. Elston's conduct raises serious doubts about the management and leadership in the Oval office and the Department of Justice.
Ref Elston's written denials have not been complete, but leave open the possibility that he's doing what he would have us believe he's denying.
There are also indicators of fraud: Threats of retaliation against witnesses.
Ref Threats to disclose information irrelevant: Witnesses still have to testify. Elston's alleged threat would require disclosing information, if it existed, outside DOJ control; and release information that should only be privately reviewed. Both are serious offenses, if proven true.
Ref Pending proceeding.
Ref Intimidation to affect right of witnesses to testify to Congress. 18 USC 241, 245.
Ref Hobbes Act.
Ref Objective: Appear to hide DoJ Staff counsel knowledge of bribes to Members of Congress to pressure the US Attorney to act on information they knew was incorrect, illegally intercepted, and for partisan purposes.
1. Michael Elston, the chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty
Ref Elston as a subordinate had a duty to remove himself from illegal activity, unlawful conduct, or efforts to corrupt official proceedings. Elston's conclusions that the threats were appropriate does not suggest he reasonably acted despite his training and experience.
Ref Elston and other DoJ Staff counsel did not timely take efforts to mitigate anything, but continued the original effort to undermine a Congressional proceeding.
2. Elston allegedly misled Congressional investigators engaged in an official proceeding when he said he did not know or denied something that he knew should have been true. This conduct brought discredit upon the Department of Justice.
Ref It is a violation of the Attorney Standards of Conduct when Elliston and others in DoJ attempted to affect an ongoing Congressional investigation. Elston's statements amount to dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and are not credible statements. Had the disparaging information been known, that should have been privately presented to Congress or the Disciplinary Board without publicly questioning the integrity of an attorney.
The failure to follow procedures, and not report information to DOJ OPR, as required, raises substantial doubts about Elston's motivation, integrity, and his fitness to practice law. The action is prejudicial to justice, and Elston has failed to remove himself form this effort to use deceit to intimidate others from providing truthful testimony.
Elston appears to be working in concert with other attorneys inside the Department of Justice to retaliate and put into effect illegal policies designed to support unlawful corruption of the Justice System, and hide evidence that other DoJ Staff counsel have actively engaged in illegal warfare, war crimes, and failed to remove themselves from illegal activity
3. Elston's conduct raises substantial questions about his integrity as an attorney.
Ref Elston did not, as required, report this information to authorities. Rather, in failing to follow the model rule procedure, Elston himself becomes the subject of the investigation. Issues of honesty, trustworthiness, and integrity are serious maters for Elston to have risen outside an official proceeding. Elston was reckless in disclosing information that was true outside an official proceeding; or in false suggesting that there existed information related to the attorney’s integrity.
4. Elston's conduct raises issues warranting review by the appropriate authorities in the Department of Justice OPR; and the State Bar.
Count 1: Obstruction of Justice
Ref Email to Cummins would satisfy criteria to open an obstruction of justice investigation.
Ref Copy of e-mail Elston sent.
Count 2: Illegal threats to unlawfully intimidate a witness
5. Elston is reported to have said that if Congressional witness provided any negative information to Congress, as agreed to under subpoena, the witnesses may suffer some sort of retaliation. This threat was designed to harass, intimidate, and dissuade witness from providing truthful information to Congress.
Ref Elston is covered by rules related to NonAdjudicative proceedings, which attach standards of conduct which Elston appears to have substantially violated.
Ref Statements do not appear truthful.
Ref Elston's comments, in threatening to release DoJ official data, show a reckless disregard for the rights of others.
Ref Threatened disclosures of confidential information belonging to the US government is a violation of the Attorney standards of conduct.
Ref Elston's conduct does not reflect well on DoJ; and his conduct is not in the interests of Justice or the American legal profession.
Ref Elston knew, or should have known, that the inconsistent DoJ Staff counsel claims before Congress had no merit and were frivolous.
Ref Elson's conduct, inconsistent statements indicates that he will have a problem with impeachment before a tribunal.
6. Elston knew that the planned release of information, only if witnesses testified, was not based on a reasonable management of information. There was no legal foundation for Elliston to release information; and Elston either planned to violate personnel data standards, or he knew that the threat was invalid without any foundation. Elston communicated that he was aware of the personnel data standards but either planned to isolate DoJ policy in releasing this information; fabricate information he knew was false; or had no intention or means to put that threat into effect.
Elston knew this information was false, and that the US Attorneys had received high praise for their work. Ref There was no factual basis for the threatened release; and implications that the DoJ had "adverse" information were without merit. Elston knew the information was false and there was no factual basis for his threat when he communicated the threat to the US Attorneys.
Ref Elston should know that the objective of the release of information was not to support Congress with truthful information, but to affect the broader audience, tamper with the jury pool, and mislead potential jurors about the events of the prospective litigation.
7. Contrary to Elston's admissions, Senior DOJ Officials, also Attorneys, failed to supervise Elston, and misled the Congress over whether there had or had not been statement. This information was inconsistent with prior testimony, and forms the basis to impeach Elston and DoJ Officials as witnesses before the House.
8. Contrary to Elston's assertions, evidence generated during the investigation reveals DOJ Counsel had discussed the matters, and there was a review with DoJ Staff counsel and the open media to generate information that was intended to discredit the witnesses, and mislead Congress. This information was known to be related to an official intent by DOJ Staff counsel to corruptly persuade or attempt to undermine a Congressional investigation.
9. Elston's denial are fatal. Elston's fatal denials were incomplete, qualified, and uncompelling. Elston denied making threats if there were discussions with themedia; however, the actual threat was linked with a disclosure to Congress. The incomplete denial is entered into evidence, admissible, and forms the basis to question the integrity of Elston as an attorney.
10. Elston and others were acting in concert because of concerns that the Department of Justice would not be able to stop Congress from expanding the Congressional inquiry into illegal warfare, war crimes, and other things which the DOJ Staff counsel and Republican Party staffers well knew were linked with war crimes.
11. The attempted effort to discredit was designed to shift attention from the President, DOJ Staff counsel alleged war crimes, and other illegal activity which the Republicans in Congress refused to review.
Count 3: Unlawful efforts to corrupt an official Congressional proceeding
We incorporate by reference all the above.
Elston denied making conversations. Evidence show the times the phone calls were made.
If there were reasonable explanations for the activity, Members of congress would not have lied, feigned ignorance, or asked that we believe things that were not true.
If there were real problems, this would have been disclosed. The lack of bonafide derogatory information about the US Attorneys is notable. The supposed information isn't something they would hold in reserve, but act on now to support an official inquiry, not disclose outside normal, official channels. The failure to release this information means the threat was not grounded in real information, but with something else.
The only reason Elston would make the call was to suggest the DOJ was "not doing" something that DoJ should have already done: : release the real story about the status to the attorneys.
Count 4: Making misleading statements bringing discredit upon the legal profession
DoJ Staff counsel including Elston have engaged in conversations, reviews, and internal deliberations not related to any decision, but with an effort to craft a story that belies the facts.
Members of Congress have suggested they didn’t recall things that they should have known. This undermines their credibility as it does Elston's motivations. Elston and others appear to be hunting for story line, but it keeps moving based on the shifting winds, new information, and other things.
Whether the calls were or were not made sequentially makes little difference: This is just an excuse to explain away the timing of announcements and actions.
GOP Members of congress have illegally worked with DoJ Staff counsel to corrupt official proceedings.
Count 5: Conspiracy, Participation in something he knew was not appropriate
Members of Congress in both chambers have brought discredit upon Congress. DOJ Staff have worked with others to hide the effort to influence official activity, and have impermissibly threatened future sanctions for truthful testimony to Congress.
Resignations indicate a problem under the Statement of Accounting Standard 99, an indicator of fraud, warranting increase in audit scope and oversight.