Someday, Bruce Ohr is going to have to testify before Congress, and today is that day. But before his grilling, the New York Times writes a defense brief: Byron York: New York Times profile of Bruce Ohr looks a lot like a well timed defense brief
As Twitchy reported, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is scheduled to appear before Congress Tuesday.
Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for opposition firm Fusion GPS, the folks who hired Christopher Steele to come up with his infamous Trump dossier, so legislators would like to know just how cozy that relationship was.
The New York Times published a profile of Ohr Monday, and The Washington Examiner’s Byron York noticed that it looked a lot like a defense brief. Crazy, huh?
Bruce Ohr is set to testify before Congress tomorrow. With fortunate good timing, on the day before Ohr's appearance, the New York Times just happens to publish what amounts to a defense brief in the form of a profile. https://t.co/bHBQw7GbfQ— Byron York (@ByronYork) August 27, 2018
As the session is closed-door, I look forward to the inevitable leaks. Jeff Carlson at themarkestwork notes The Missing Papadopoulos Meetings. I still want to know more about what the Mysterious Mr. Mifsud was up to:
There are two legal versions of events relating to Papadopoulos. One from the July 28, 2017, affidavit signed by FBI Agent Robert M. Gibbs, and one from theOct. 5, 2017, Statement of the Offense “signed” by Robert Mueller–and undersigned by Jeannie S. Rhee, Andrew D. Goldstein, and Aaron S.J. Zelinsky.I believe Mr. Mifsud was an agent provocateur for the FBI, probably handled through British intelligence sent to ensnare Papadop with apparent Russian collusion. Maybe Millian, too.
To the casual eye, these documents provide a relatively similar version of events, although there are some differences:
The Mueller version has a tendency to emphasize Papadopoulos’s Russian contacts and the Gibbs version presents events in a slightly differing timeline format, but the overall presentation of events remains reasonably similar through June 1, 2016.
- Maltese academic Joseph Mifsud is known as “Foreign Contact 1” in the July 27, 2017, Affidavit and “the professor” in the Oct. 5, 2017, unsealed Statement of Offense.
- Olga Polonskaya, introduced as “Putin’s niece” is known as “Foreign Contact 3” July 27, 2017, Affidavit and “Female Russian National” in the Oct. 5, 2017, unsealed Statement of Offense.
- Ivan Timofeev is referred to as “Foreign Contact 2” in the July 27, 2017, Affidavit and the “Russian MFA Connection” in the Oct. 5, 2017, unsealed Statement of Offense.
However, after June 1, 2016, the Mueller version suddenly becomes vague, in relation to direct foreign contacts by Papadopoulos.
. . .
The Wall Street Journal has reported on Millian as being both Source D and E in the Steele dossier. There are all kinds of questions surrounding Millian. The fact that he was meeting with Papadopoulos in July 2016 is material. So why did the Mueller team specifically ignore this entire sequence of events in their Oct. 5, 2017 unsealed Statement of Offense. The Gibbs version provides a bit more detail but also fails to note the Millian meeting.
John Sexton at Hot Air: Roger Stone: Robert Mueller And Ronan Farrow Are Both Coming For Me. We'll see, won't we? True Pundit: Giuliani: When Mueller’s report shows Trump’s innocence we will admit he was ‘fair’ A great position to start bargaining from. Ned Ryun, American Greatness: America’s Crisis Is Three-Tiered Justice
Last week brought to the fore a serious problem now threatening to undermine the very foundations of America’s constitutional republic: we no longer have equal application of justice under the law. The rule of law has become trifurcated, with a different application of the law depending upon one’s position in the political hierarchy.Ann Althouse not impressed with the Axios list: "Congressional Republicans are getting ready for hell. Axios has obtained a spreadsheet that's circulated through Republican circles on and off Capitol Hill..."
First, there’s one application of the law for members of the powerful elite who have the right political connections. Here, the law is more a series of suggestions that might or might not be followed with almost no legal consequences for non-compliance.
Example A, of course, is Hillary Clinton. Many people have gone to jail for doing what she did, including members of our armed forces. Yet she paid no consequences for violating laws on the use of classified information on her unsecured and illegal private server.
. . .
Then there’s the application of the law for high-powered government bureaucrats. They can abuse their power, lie under oath, spy on Congress, pass around fake dossiers, leak to the press while turning the bureaucracy into personal weapons against political opponents, but face no consequences save getting a fat contract as an on-air contributor from a news outlet.
And finally, there is the application of the law for the rest of us, the normal everyday Americans who bear the full brunt of the law for a single violation of mishandling classified information or any other breach of national security law. If you have the wrong political connections or aligned yourself against the establishment in any way, you get pre-dawn raids from an FBI that look more like the KGB’s modus operandi than that of a constitutional republic.
So if you try to tell me that we have equal application of justice under the law in America, you’re living in an alternate reality because what’s taking place around us points to arbitrary law.
"... including at least one leadership office — that meticulously previews the investigations Democrats will likely launch if they flip the House."Twitchy: OH NOEZ! Dem lawmaker admits evidence is lacking to impeach Trump and the Resistance totally loses its SH*T. To be fair, they lose their shit fairly easily. Breitbart: Scott Adams: If Donald Trump Goes Down, Hillary Clinton Goes to Prison. Almost a fair trade. Jeff Crouere, Town Hall: The Impeachment Insanity
It sounds worse as a generality than if you read the itemization:
Sundance at CTH: Retreat We Much: Attorney for Michael Cohen Now Reverses Claims on Trump Knowledge of any Russian Event… Aaron Blake, The Washington Post (link goes to newstimes) Michael Cohen's lawyer has done real damage to the case against Trump. He's making his client look (more) like an unreliable witness. And of course, the inevitable: Brian Stelter Ignores CNN’s Bungled Trump Tower Story, Da Caller. All the news that fits the agenda.
Mary Tyler March at the Hill: Lewandowski: I warned everybody that Cohen was going to become a problem
"Michael was very good at certain things and one of the things he was very good at, and we have now seen it, is intimidating people," Lewandowski responded.A miracle for the planned media canonization of John McCain from the Atlantic: John McCain’s Epiphany About Paul Manafort "Manafort saw managing the 2008 Republican convention as almost a birthright. But McCain denied him the job. He couldn’t abide Manafort’s pro-Russian clients—and told him so."
"I didn't like to work with Michael, I didn't like to interact with Michael, and that's why he had no role in the campaign, even when he wanted one," he continued. "I was very clear when I was in charge of the campaign, Michael was not somebody who we wanted at the campaign. He would go out and make statements that we had to walk back afterwards because he would say things which were factually untrue. I warned everybody at the organization that Michael was going to become a problem."
From the New York Times via WRAL: Could Trump’s Missing Signature Force Him to Be Deposed? More Stormy/Cohen/Avenatti wrangling that may or may not happen.
Allahpundit: Poll: Strong Majority Thinks Brennan, Comey Should Have Their Clearances Revoked
For all the heat POTUS has taken from natsec people and the media over this, the public’s firmly on his side.
The survey showed 59 percent of registered voters felt Brennan should have lost his security clearance, while 64 percent said Comey and others at the FBI who were fired or demoted over their actions should lose their clearance.If Comey still had a clearance, which he doesn’t, this probably would have cinched its revocation . . .
Overall, 60 percent of registered voters said they believed that former national security officials who become consultants and TV news contributors should give up their national security clearances…
“There would definitely be support for a wholesale policy revoking their clearances,” [pollster Mark Penn] added.