In refusing
to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention when
required to do so, the members of Congress not only violated federal
income tax law but their oath of office
as well. The
Constitution requires that all members of Congress must take an oath of
office to support the Constitution before assuming office. In order to comply
with the Constitution, Congress has enacted federal laws to execute and enforce
this constitutional requirement.
Federal law regulating oath of
office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an
executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual
oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office.
5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress
sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate
that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part
of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly
makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for
anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress)
to �advocate the overthrow of our constitutional
form of government�. The fourth federal law, 18
U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from
office and; (2) confinement or a fine.
The definition of �advocate� is further specified in Executive Order 10450 which for the
purposes of enforcement supplements 5 U.S.C.
7311. One provision of Executive
Order 10450 specifies it is a violation of 5
U.S.C. 7311� for any person taking
the oath of office to advocate �the alteration ...
of the form of the government of the United States by unconstitutional means.�
Our form of government is defined by the Constitution of the United States. It
can only be �altered� by constitutional amendment. Thus, according to Executive Order 10450 (and therefore 5 U.S. 7311) any act taken by government
officials who have taken the oath of office prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 3331which alters the form of
government other by amendment, is a criminal violation of the 5 U.S.C. 7311.
Congress has never altered the
Article V Convention clause by constitutional amendment. Hence, the original
language written in the law by the Framers and its original intent remains undisturbed and intact.
That law specifies a convention call is peremptory
on Congress when the states have applied for a convention call and uses the
word �shall� to state this. The
states have applied. When members of Congress disobey the law of the
Constitution and refuse to issue a call for an Article V Convention when peremptorily required to do so by that law, they have
asserted a veto power when none exists nor was
ever intended to exist in that law. This veto alters the form of our
government by removing one of the methods of amendment proposal the law of the
Constitution creates. Such alteration without amendment is a criminal violation
of 5 U.S.C. 7311 and 18 U.S.C. 1918.
In addition, the members of
Congress committed a second criminal violation of their oaths of office
regarding an Article V Convention call. 5
U.S.C. 7311 clearly specifies it is a criminal violation for any member of
Congress to advocate the overthrow of our
constitutional form of government. The definition of the word �advocate� is to: �defend by argument before a tribunal
or the public: support or recommend publicly.�
The single intent of the federal
lawsuit Walker v Members of Congress (a public record) was to compel Congress
to obey the law of the Constitution and call an Article V Convention as peremptorily required by that law, the original intent of which has never altered
by constitutional amendment. The lawsuit was brought because Congress has
refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal obviously establishes
the objective of the members of Congress to overthrow our form of government by
establishing they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the
Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.
The word �peremptory�
precludes any objection whatsoever by members of Congress to refuse to call an
Article V Convention. This peremptory preclusion certainly includes joining a
lawsuit to oppose obeying the law of the Constitution and it may be vetoed by
members of Congress. That act not only violates the law of the Constitution but
5 U.S.C. 7311 as well. When the members of
Congress joined to oppose Walker v Members of Congress their opposition became
part of the court record and therefore a matter of public record. �Thus, regardless of whatever arguments
for such opposition were presented by their legal counsel to justify their
opposition, the criminal violation of the oath of office occurred because the
members of Congress joined the lawsuit to publicly declare their opposition to
obeying the law of the Constitution.
A Quick Summation Of The Walker Lawsuits
A summation absent any references of the two Walker
lawsuits, Walker v. United States and Walker v. Members of Congress is as
follows:
A federal district court in Seattle ruled in Walker v. United
States (2000) that the Congress could disobey the law of the Constitution under
the political question doctrine. The district court ruled the plaintiff had no
standing to sue and therefore the court had no jurisdiction to issue a ruling
in the suit. Nevertheless court issued its political question doctrine ruling,
which had never been issued by any court previously regarding the convention
call based on an advisory opinion issued by the Supreme Court. Advisory
opinions have no force or weight of law. This advisory opinion also stated that
any decisions based on its recommendations would also be advisory. Thus, the
original intent of the Constitution, that Congress was peremptorily required to
call a convention, remain untouched.
In Walker v. Members of Congress (2004), the members of
Congress voluntarily and deliberately joined a federal lawsuit to oppose
obeying the law of the Constitution. The attorney of record provided written
proof in open public court that as a matter of public record that each member
of Congress individually made this decision. It is against federal criminal law
for any member of Congress to join a federal lawsuit to advocate such action or
to advocate such a position.
The attorneys of record for the members of Congress based
their actions in the Walker v. Members of Congress lawsuit on an advisory
opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court, in that
advisory opinion, stated that decision, and any subsequent decisions related to
the amendatory process, was given �wholly without constitutional authority�
meaning the advisory opinion on which the attorneys of record based their
actions had no force or weight of law whatsoever thus leaving the peremptory
original intent of the Constitution intact.
As a result of these actions by the member of Congress�
attorney of record, federal law required the Attorney General of the United
States write for the public record, a report to Congress explaining the reasons
why the law of the Constitution can be disobeyed by members of Congress, who made
this decision and when it was made. The public report, by law, was required to
be submitted to Congress before final arguments in the appeal process of
Walker v. Members of Congress were concluded thus giving their attorneys the
opportunity to �change their mind� if so instructed by their clients, the
members of Congress. The members did not so instruct their attorney of record.
Walker v. Members of Congress was appealed to the Supreme
Court. Federal law requires that all facts and law submitted in writs of
certiorari by the plaintiff (appellant) to the Supreme Court must either be (1)
waived, meaning the defendant (appellee) in the lawsuit admits as a matter of
fact and law that the statements made by the plaintiff are true and correct or
(2) opposed, in which case federal law requires the defendant give the reasons
why the alleged facts and law are not true and correct.
The attorney of record for the members of Congress, the
Solicitor General of the United States acting in his official capacity, waived
challenging the facts and law presented by the plaintiff in the Walker v.
Members of Congress writ of certiorari. The writ of certiorari is public
record. The members of Congress (acting through their attorney of record)
therefore admitted in open court for the public record that the following is
true and correct as a matter of fact and law:
(1)that under Article V of the United States Constitution,
Congress is required to call an Article V Convention if two-thirds of the state
legislatures apply for one;
(2)that the Article V Convention call is based on a numeric count
of applying states;
(3)that all 50 states have submitted 567 applications for such a
convention;
(4)that an Article V Convention call is peremptory on Congress;
(5)that the political
subject matter of an amendment application is irrelevant and does not effect
Congress� obligation to call an Article V Convention;
(6)that the refusal of
the members of Congress to obey the law of the Constitution and immediately
call a convention is a violation of their oath of office as well as a violation
of federal criminal law and;
(7)that by joining a lawsuit to advocate in open public court
they can ignore, veto, disobey or otherwise thwart a convention call, the
members of Congress violated federal criminal law.
�
SO IT IS TIME NOW TO MARCH ON WASHINGTON AND REMOVE EVERY ILLEGAL MEMBER OF CONGRESS. THEY ARE NOT THE MASTERS OF THE COUNTRY. WE ARE!
REFUTING THE 10 POINTS OF OBSTRUCTION LAID OUT BY THE MUELLER GANG OF LEFTY THUGS
Here are the specific list of Mueller’s ten absurd examples of “obstruction.”
ALLEGATION: The president told disgraced former
F.B.I. Director James Comey he “hoped” Comey could see his way clear of
letting go of former National Security Adviser Retired Lt. Gen. Michael
Flynn, who was under investigation, even after the White House fired
him.
TRUTH: Trump had the constitutional authority to legally
put a stop to this investigation and did not use it. Expressing one’s
“hope” is not an act of obstruction, nor is it an order … it is the
expression of one’s hope. What’s more, Trump is expressing this hope
about someone else, not himself.
ALLEGATION: Trump wanted his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to not recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
TRUTH: So what? Trump selected Sessions to be his
attorney general because he had faith in him in that role. Once Sessions
recused himself, Trump — and don’t forget we are talking about a man
innocent of the treason charges being investigated — was now at the
mercy of the same Deep State that was already selectively and illegally
leaking to frame him for treason. Trump was not calling on Sessions to reverse his recusal and shut
down the investigation. He wanted someone he trusted overseeing it. That
is not obstruction, it’s common sense and the way you would expect an
innocent man to act.
ALLEGATION: Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation.
TRUTH: Trump fired Comey on Rod Rosenstein’s
recommendation. Trump fired Comey because Comey deliberately set him up
with that briefing about the phony dossier (Comey’s briefing was the
hook the fake news media used to make what became known as the pee pee dossier
public). Trump fired Comey because Comey refused to report the truth —
that the president was not under investigation and Trump felt (for
legitimate reasons) as though he were being blackmailed. Trump fired
Comey, as he told Lester Holt on NBC, because he knew Comey would drag
his feet with the Russian investigation and Trump wanted to put the
issue behind him. The only way the firing of Comey could be construed as obstruction is
if Comey’s replacement agreed to stop the investigation. That didn’t
happen because Trump wanted the exact opposite: he wanted the matter
resolved.
ALLEGATION: Trump was angry about the appointment of a special counsel and expressed a desire to fire people.
TRUTH: So what? Mueller is actually attempting to claim
that Trump’s tweets about the “witch hunt” and his threats to fire
people (that were never followed through on) constitute obstruction. An innocent man raging against a plot to frame him is not, in any
legal or moral sense, obstruction. What’s more, had Trump followed
through with firing Mueller and Sessions, that would not have been
obstruction because it was well within his legal authority to do so.
ALLEGATION: Trump asked his former campaign manager Corey
Lewandowski to tell Sessions to announce that the investigation was very
unfair to him, and that he had done nothing wrong.
TRUTH: So what? Asking your attorney general to tell the public the truth is not obstruction.
ALLEGATION: Trump was not publicly forthcoming about the Trump Tower Meeting.
TRUTH: Lying to the media or to the public is not
obstruction of justice. All Trump did was spin the meeting in the most
favorable light possible — which only proves he’s a politician. When
Obama did this, the media gushed over his amazing talent at
“slow-walking the truth.” If lying to the public or to the media is obstruction of justice, the jails are gunna be awfully full.
ALLEGATION: Trump continued to pressure Sessions to unrecuse himself.
TRUTH: So what? Trying to put someone else in charge of
an investigation is not obstruction. In fact, the Mueller Report notes
that Trump told Sessions: “I’m not going to do anything or direct you to
do anything. I just want to be treated fairly” — which tells you that
Mueller including this in his childish listicle is his way of padding
his non-case.
ALLEGATION: Trump didn’t want the public to know he had “directed
McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn
had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. “
TRUTH: Again, lying to the press and to the public is not
obstruction, and if Trump had truly wanted Mueller fired he could have
legally done it. This entire narrative about Trump wanting people fired
or wanting to put Sessions in charge of the investigation is
breathtakingly desperate and dumb.
ALLEGATION: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and
Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over.
TRUTH: It is not obstruction of justice to express an
opinion and these opinions are perfectly in line with an innocent man
being falsely accused of treason while the Deep State and media attempt
to frame him. What’s more, Trump was almost always publicly expressing these opinions. People do not commit crimes in front of 50 million Twitter followers.
ALLEGATION: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.
TRUTH: As you can see, to pad his non-case to number ten,
rather than include Cohen with Manafort and Flynn, Mueller makes
Trump’s reaction to Cohen a separate item. Sorry, but in America telling a friend to “stay strong” when he’s
under investigation and then publicly calling him a “rat” when he
falsely accuses you of crimes is not obstruction.
Robert Mueller knows what obstruction of justice is. What he’s hoping is that the public doesn’t know. He was also hoping that The Leftist Media in cahoots with Socialist Democrat Masters in Congress would push the narrative.
Bottom line: Just like his best pal Comey, Robert Mueller is a dirty
cop who failed to frame Trump so on his way out the door he bitterly
lashed out with lies, ad hominem, false accusations, and total
blithering, blathering nonsense.
Robert Mueller is the Clinton Uranium Mule. I have a complete blog identifying what he did as FBI Director under Obama.
And who were the LAWYERS ON THE MUELLER TEAM ??
Here is the dirty List of them:
Eleven of the other 17 lawyers on special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s
Russia investigation team have donated to Democrats, though, with
multiple of them giving money to either the campaigns of Barack Obama or
Hillary Clinton, a review by Heavy of Federal Election Commission records
shows (two of those lawyers only donated at state-level races). None of
the lawyers on the Mueller team is listed as donating money to Trump’s
campaign or to the presidential campaigns of any past Republicans,
although one donated to Republicans in non-presidential races in
addition to giving more money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and a
string of Democrats.
Six other lawyers on the team do not have
previous campaign donations, a review of records shows. The lawyers have
other ties that might provide an indicator of their politics; some have
clerked for liberal Supreme Court justices, for example. One appears to
have written a column proclaiming he was a Democrat.
Here’s a list of the team members and their donations and voter affiliations:
Donated to Democrats
1. Adam Jed
No
campaign donations come up on the FEC website for Adam Jed. However, he
has donated to Democrats on the state level. Wisconsin campaign finance
records show he gave $1,000 in 2017 to Josh Kaul, a Democrat running for state Attorney General. Kaul worked as a lawyer for Perkins Coie, the law firm that funneled money from
the Hillary Clinton campaign to Christopher Steele, the former British
spy who compiled the controversial and unverified Donald Trump dossier.
He’s a registered Democrat, according to The Post. Jed also donated $100 to the Democratic candidate for state’s attorney in Baltimore. According to CNN,
Jed “worked on several high-profile Supreme Court cases during the
Obama administration,” including the case that overturned the Defense of
Marriage Act and a case that “defended the Affordable Care Act’s
contraceptive mandate in the Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius
case.”
2. Andrew Weissmann
Andrew Weissmann is a veteran government prosecutor known for his controversial role on
the Enron task force and for going after mob figures in New York. He’s
known for his abilities at flipping lower-level defendants on bigger
targets (and even going after family members), but Weissmann is
controversial in other circles as some consider him an overreaching
prosecutor who is sometimes overturned by higher courts.He’s integrally involved in the Mueller team. On October 27, 2017, CNN reported,
“top lawyers who are helping to lead the Mueller probe, including
veteran prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, were seen entering the court room
at the DC federal court where the grand jury meets to hear testimony in
the Russia investigation.”Weissmann is a Barack Obama and
Democratic campaign donor, according to federal records. “Weissmann, who
led the Enron investigation, previously gave $2,300 to Obama’s first
presidential campaign in 2008 and $2,000 to the Democratic National
Committee in 2006, the same year Democrats won control of Congress. FEC
records do not show any donations by Weissman in the 2016 election
cycle,” CNN confirmed.
Here are the Obama-related donations on the FEC website:
The
Washington Post reported that he’s a registered Democrat and noted,
“Records seem to indicate a duplicate donation on the same day, though
…Weissmann could confirm only one and would have to review records to
assess whether the other might have been a recording error.”
Jeannie Rhee donated $5,400 to Hillary Clinton in 2015 and
2016, according to FEC records. The records show she gave $2,500 each to
Obama for America and Obama Victory Fund 2012 in 2011. She’s a
registered Democrat, The Post reports.
FEC
She also donated large amounts of money to Obama in 2008.
FEC
“Rhee also has contributed smaller amounts of money to the
Democratic National Committee and other Democrats running for Congress,” Fox News reports. FEC records show she also gave $500 in 2013 to Udall for Congress. Mark Udall, a former Democratic senator from Colorado called Trump a
“showboater with an ego bigger than the mountain” in 2016. She also
donated money to Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island.
Here are the Clinton donations from the FEC website:
In 2011, she rejoined the Boston law firm WilmerHale “as a
partner in the Litigation/Controversy Department and a member of the
Investigations and Criminal Litigation Practice. Ms. Rhee will resume
her practice focused on advising clients who are the subject of
government investigations, including white-collar criminal
investigations, False Claims Act allegations and securities enforcement
matters.” The WilmerHale press release said that
Rhee had served “for two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
in the Office of Legal Counsel for the US Department of Justice, where
she advised the Attorney General, the White House and senior agency
officials on constitutional, statutory and regulatory issues regarding
criminal law, criminal procedure, executive privilege, civil rights and
national security.” She has also served as an assistant U.S. attorney in
the U.S. Attorney’s office in the District of Columbia where she was
involved in the “successful prosecution of officers of the Washington
Teachers’ Union. Ms. Rhee also served as a legislative fellow in the
office of former Senator Tom Daschle and as a counsel in the US
Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy.”
4. Andrew Goldstein
Andrew
Goldstein, a registered Democrat, came to Mueller’s team from the U.S.
attorney’s office in New York, where he once served under Trump critic
Preet Bharara. According to NBC News,
“Goldstein was former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara’s top public
corruption prosecutor and kept the same role under Acting U.S. Attorney
Joon Kim. He’s known for multiple successful prosecutions of New York
lawmakers on corruption charges. He’s also highly regarded in the
Southern District and across Justice for those prosecutions, his
thoroughness in investigations, and high level of success.”
According to Fox News, “Goldstein contributed a combined
$3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.” You can see one of his
donations above.
5. Greg Andres
Greg Andres.
FEC records show that Andres has donated money to Democratic
candidates for U.S. Senate. Here’s the FEC document of the latest of
those donations:
According to Reuters,
“Most recently a white-collar criminal defense lawyer with New York law
firm Davis Polk & Wardwell, Andres, 50, served at the Justice
Department from 2010 to 2012. He was deputy assistant attorney general
in the criminal division, where he oversaw the fraud unit and managed
the program that targeted illegal foreign bribery.” He’s a registered
Democrat, according to The Post.
6. James Quarles
James Quarles.
FEC records show that James Quarles, a registered Democrat,
has donated thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama. He has also donated money recently to other Democrats,
including Friends of Chuck Schumer and two other Democrats. He has a
lengthy donation history dating back years. He did donate to two
Republicans over the years: According to FEC records, he gave $2,500 to
Friends of Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican. He also gave money to
then Senator George Allen, a Virginia Republican, in 2005. Most of his
giving is to Democrats, however. According to The Washington Post, his donations to Democrats totaled more than $30,000 in 2016.
He also gave thousands of dollars to Obama both in 2008 and
2012. Fox News noted, “Most recently, in October 2016, Quarles donated
$2,700 to Clinton’s presidential campaign. Quarles also donated over
$7,000 to Obama over the last decade.”
Quarles has quite a legal pedigree. He “started his career working on the Watergate Special Prosecution Force,” The Independent reported.Noted CNN,
“James Quarles has spent the last several years at a private firm
focusing on complex litigation matters and management, but it’s how his
career started that might prove critical….Quarles worked on the
Watergate Special Prosecution Force, for which he served as an assistant
special prosecutor.”
7. Elizabeth Prelogar
Elizabeth
Prelogar, a registered Democrat, gave $250 to Hillary Clinton in 2016,
according to FEC records. She also gave $500 total to Obama for America
and the Obama Victory Fund 2012. According to the National Law Journal,
Prelogar “an assistant to the solicitor general, is working with deputy
solicitor general Michael Dreeben in his part-time role in Mueller’s
legal team.”
The National Law Journal noted, “Prelogar, a former law clerk
to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, is a Harvard Law School
graduate and formerly worked in private practice at Hogan
Lovells…Prelogar also appears to be fluent in Russian.” (She was also Miss Idaho 2004).
8. Brandon Van Grack
Brandon Van Grack, a registered Democrat, gave small amounts
to ActBlue, an effort to raise money for Democrats, and to a Democratic
candidate for Congress in 2012. In 2008, he gave about $286 to Barack
Obama.
According to his LinkedIn page,
Van Grack is a special assistant U.S. Attorney in the National Security
and International Crime Unit. He also served as a counsel to the
Assistant Attorney General, and “Provided strategic legal advice and
counsel to the Department’s leadership on national security matters,
including cyber crimes, export controls, economic sanctions, espionage,
and theft of trade secrets.” He was a law clerk to federal judge Thomas
Hogan and was in private practice at Baker Botts LLP.
9. Rush Atkinson
Rush Atkinson is
a Hillary Clinton campaign donor. “Atkinson is an attorney on detail
from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section of the DOJ. Records show that
Atkinson donated $200 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016,” Fox News
reported. The Post reports he’s a registered Democrat.
10. Kyle Freeny
CBS News named
Kyle Freeny as one of the members of Mueller’s team. “Freeny is serving
on detail from the DOJ’s Criminal Division’s Money Laundering and Asset
Recovery Section,” reported CBS. He’s a registered Democrat, according
to The Post.
FEC records show that Kyle Freeny of the DOJ donated $250 to Hillary for America in 2016.
In 2012, Freeny gave $300 to Obama. In 2008, Freeny also gave $250 to Obama, FEC records show.
11. Aaron Zelinsky
There are no federal campaign donations listed for Aaron Zelinsky. Daily Caller reports
that Zelinsky “donated $100 in 2014 to the Branford Democratic Town
Committee in Connecticut and $100 to a Democratic state lawmaker in
2016.” He’s a registered Democrat, the Post reports.
The Daily Caller reported that Zelinsky wrote this column
proclaiming to be a Democrat, and Politifact noted the column in a
story on Mueller’s team but did not confirm it. The 2016 article starts,
“I’m a Democrat, but here’s some free advice to Republicans: starting
right now, get off the ‘traditional marriage’ bus as fast as you can. If
today’s election showed anything, it’s that the demographic tide is
turning against you. Big time.”
The author biography listed by The
Huffington Post with that column matches details in Zelinsky, the
Mueller lawyer’s, biography as reported by New Haven Independent when he joined the Mueller team.
According
to the New Haven newspaper, he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justices
John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy. He was praised as a
“professional, non-partisan, straight shooter,” in that story.
No Campaign Donations
1. Zainab Ahmad
According to The Daily Caller,
Zainab Ahmad “appears to have registered as a Republican at the age of
18, but has since changed her registration status to unaffiliated.”
A review of FEC records shows no campaign donations for Ahmad. She has worked on several
terrorism cases in the past for the government, including that of
al-Qaeda terrorist Najibullah Zazi, who “pleaded guilty in 2010 to
terrorism charges relating to a plot to bomb the New York City subways
on the 9/11 anniversary,” CNN reported.
2. Ryan Dickey
The
Post says he’s a registered Democrat. FEC records show no campaign
donations by Ryan Dickey. According to CNN, Ryan Dickey “was previously
an assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia and also
worked in the Justice Department’s Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property Section.”
He is “a federal prosecutor responsible for investigating several high-profile cybercrime cases,” The Washington Times reported.
3. Michael Dreeben
Michael
Dreeben has no campaign donations in his background (although some
media outlets initially falsely reported a donation as his that was made
by a person with the same name). He’s a registered Democrat, according
to The Post. “Dreeben is one of only eight lawyers ever to have argued
more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court,” The Weekly Standard reports.
4. Scott Meisler
No campaign donations and no voter registration affiliation come up for Scott Meisler. Reuters described Meisler as “an appellate attorney with the Justice Department’s criminal division.”
5. Brian M. Richardson
Richardson
is a former clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer. Due to the commonality of
his name, it’s not clear from FEC records whether Bryan Richardson has
made any donations. The Post says he has no voter affiliation.
6. Aaron Zebley
There
are no campaign donations or voter affiliation listed for Aaron Zebley.
According to Fox News, Zebley “is a former partner at WilmerHale, who
previously served with Mueller at the FBI as chief of staff. Zebley
served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of
Virginia.”
Andrew Weissmann is a veteran government prosecutor known for his controversial role on
the Enron task force and for going after mob figures in New York. He’s
known for his abilities at flipping lower-level defendants on bigger
targets (and even going after family members), but Weissmann is
controversial in other circles as some consider him an overreaching
prosecutor who is sometimes overturned by higher courts.He’s integrally involved in the Mueller team. On October 27, 2017, 
