What possible legitimate purpose?

Yes, thank you for asking, it is quite strange that subjects of an investigation were allowed to plant their lawyers and friends in a meeting to discuss the investigation while it is in progress. As a matter of fact, to put it more technically, it’s a fucking circus.

The president’s chief of staff and the White House counsel attended a classified briefing Thursday with top Justice Department officials and lawmakers about an investigation into the president and his associates — and the events have floored national-security experts and former intelligence officials.

When the White House announced the first of the two briefings earlier this week, it said chief of staff John Kelly would not be attending.

One former FBI official said they were “gobsmacked” when they learned the chief of staff would be present after all.

Why? Because normally investigators don’t like to share details of their investigations with people they’re investigating until it’s time to go to trial. They prefer to keep all that to themselves in the hopes that the people they’re investigating won’t be helped to defeat the purpose of the investigation.

“This is an investigation centering squarely around the president and his cohorts,” said this person, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “And we’ve got the president’s chief of staff attending a classified briefing — and getting sensitive intelligence — about said investigation. It’s a f—ing circus.”

When it emerged later that Emmet Flood, the new White House counsel, also attended the briefing, the person added: “This is truly mind-boggling.”

It’s a fucking circus, is what it is.

Renato Mariotti, a longtime former federal prosecutor in Chicago, expressed a similar view.

“It is completely inappropriate for a lawyer representing a subject of the investigation to attend the congressional oversight meeting in which nonpublic information about the investigation was revealed,” he tweeted following the first briefing. “What possible legitimate purpose could his attendance have served?”

None, but that’s not why he was there.

3 Responses to “What possible legitimate purpose?”