Can this possibly be legal? Somebody apparently thinks so, because copies of the Mueller report are being offered for sale online right now, and according to the pre-order announcement the release date is going to be “March 26”. As a former attorney, I have no idea how anyone can legally do this. As I have documented previously, when Mueller is done with his report he is supposed to submit it to Attorney General William Barr, and then it will be up to Barr to determine how much of the report, if any, will be made available to the public. I suppose that it is possible that Barr has already agreed to release the full report to the public at the end of this month, but I find it difficult to believe that it would have been kept so quiet. To me, something is not right about all of this.A link to buy it here, and contribute a few cents to my beer fund. Moreat the NYPo, Publishers are already rushing books on Mueller report. Reuters, Don't expect details from Mueller probe -senior U.S. Republican:
President Donald Trump's Justice Department is unlikely to grant Democrats in Congress access to underlying evidence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, a top congressional Republican said on Friday.Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Lindsey Graham Reboots FISA Abuse Investigation With Expansive DOJ Document Request. I like Lindsey 2.0.
If Representative Doug Collins is right, Democratic-led congressional committees that have launched their own probes of Trump may be stuck with a Mueller investigation report that serves more as a general guidebook than a detailed roadmap of Russian interference and any Trump campaign collusion.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham is resuming an investigation of potential surveillance abuse by the FBI with an expansive request for records related to the bureau’s vetting of the Steele dossier.Streif at Red State, Adam Schiff Proven A Liar As The Bruce Ohr Transcript Is Released But only when his mouth is moving.
In a letter sent Thursday to Attorney General William Barr, Graham asked for all FBI and Justice Department documents related to investigators’ attempts to verify allegations made in the dossier, which was authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and funded by Democrats.
Schiff claims Steele was never paid. Ohr says he was. Schiff knew when he approved that memo this was a lie. But this shows the extent to which Schiff was willing to go to try to cover up the actions of Bruce Ohr because he knew that those actions indicated a long-term effort to damage Trump’s election chances. Schiff says Ohr did not meet with Steele until after the election. . .And speaking of lyin' Adam, So What Did Schiff’s Staff And Cohen Discuss For Ten Hours Before Oversight Testimony? (Ed at Hot Air). Probably not the Mets. A lot of witness coaching? And he still couldn't find Adam's collusion. Chuck Ross again, CNN Leak During Michael Cohen Testimony Recalls Memories Of Network’s Bungled Don Jr. Story Bungled, or deliberately misleading? It's CNN so it could go either way.
But a source familiar with Cohen’s House Intel testimony tells TheDCNF there was nothing “nefarious” in the documents Cohen provided Wednesday.Althouse, "Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen..."
“Documents show nothing nefarious at all. [The] January date for Trump Tower was in Cohen’s original draft and was not edited by lawyers,” said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of Cohen’s testimony.
Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 8, 2019
A lawyer lie? Ann also torches Nancy Pelosi over her grammar: Nancy Pelosi's grammar mistake is telling: "Whomever falls into that net, falls into that net."
I'm reading the front-page WaPo article "House Democrats torn over how aggressively to scrutinize Ivanka Trump, president’s other children."Can you imagine Bo Diddley singing "Whom Do You Love?"
Presidential children rarely draw the scrutiny of congressional investigators, but Trump’s adult children fill unique roles in his administration, with Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, carrying the title of senior advisers to the president while being heavily involved in policy decisions and Capitol Hill negotiations on criminal justice, the Middle East and paid family leave.Who uses the word "whom" in speech? You sound stuffy even if you use it correctly, but when you use it incorrectly, you're really letting it show that you're straining at — what? — aloofness, intellectualism, loftiness, distance. It's so revealing.
“Whomever falls into that net, falls into that net,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, arguing that Trump’s children are not off limits to investigations. “They are advisers to the president. They have security clearances. This is not their children at home.”
From the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 03.08.19, Legal Insurrection brings us Judge Dismisses Stormy Daniels’ Lawsuit Over $130,000 NDA.
There was a second lawsuit by Stormy, before the same judge, seeking to void the non-disclosure provisions of the agreement under which Stormy was paid $130,000. She got paid, and went on national TV, but wanted a declaration that Trump wouldn’t enforce the non-disclosure. The case started in state court, then was ‘removed’ to federal court. You can read the The First Amended Complaint (pdf.).
Trump moved to dismiss the case as moot because his lawyers filed with the court statements that Trump had not intention of enforcing the non-disclosure provisions.
The Court just granted the motion to dismiss. The full Order of Dismissal (pdf.) is embedded below.
The Court found the case was moot except for the declaratory request, which did not satisfy federal court jurisdictional requirements.
In the instant case, the Court must determine if Defendants’ Covenants moot Plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action, eliminating the case or controversy that exists before the Court.2 To address this question, the Court is mindful of the fact that “a defendant cannot automatically moot a case simply by ending its unlawful conduct once sued. Otherwise, a defendant could engage in unlawful conduct, stop when sued to have the case declared moot, then pick up where he left off, repeating this cycle until he achieves all his unlawful ends. Given this concern,  cases have explained that ‘a defendant claiming that its voluntary compliance moots a case bears the formidable burden of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.'” Id. (internal citations omitted).
* * *
Plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act is moot….
Defendants’ Covenants make it impossible for Defendants to sue Plaintiff based on the Agreement. EC “covenant[ed] not to assert any rights and/or claims against [Plaintiff] with respect to the validity and/or enforcement of the Confidential Settlement Agreement, including but not limited to any claims against [Plaintiff ] for breach thereof. [Defendant EC reserved] the right to seek reimbursement for the $130,000 in consideration paid to [Plaintiff] in connection therewith.” (ECF No. 79, Ex. A.) Similarly, Defendant DJT stated that he “[did] not, and w[ould] not, contest [Plaintiff]’s assertion that the  Agreement was never formed, or in the alternative, should be rescinded. Moreover, [he covenanted] that he [would] not bring any action, proceeding or claim against Plaintiff to enforce any of the terms of the  Agreement.” Based on Defendants’ Covenants, Defendants’ purportedly wrongful behavior, suing Plaintiff under the Agreement, could not reasonably be expected to recur.
* * *
No active case or controversy exists before the Court under California Law, either…. As with the federal declaratory relief claim, there is no longer an active case or controversy before this Court because of Defendants’ Covenants.
Stormy and her attorney Michael Avenatti are declaring victory from the dismissal. But that’s idiotic, since Trump previously told the court he wouldn’t enforce the NDA. Stormy and Avenatti wanted to keep the case alive so they could take depositions, as KTLA reports:Yes, I Killed The Stormy Daniels Story Because It Wasn’t Ready For Prime Time
Daniels had fought dismissal of the case because she wanted to record sworn testimony from the two.
Daniels’ attorney, Michael Avenatti, made no mention of that broader goal in declaring victory Thursday.
“The court found that Ms. Daniels received everything she asked for by way of the lawsuit — she won,” Avenatti said.
On October 18, I got my first look at the Stormy Daniels story written by Fox reporter Diana Falzone, who primarily covered celebrity news for print and video. It wasn’t a detailed investigative piece as the media has portrayed this week, but a 9-paragraph story that sorely needed backup.What, insisting on confirmation? That's not how journolism is done in the era of Trump!
It included: a two-word confirmation – “it’s true” – from an unnamed Daniels “spokesperson,” an anonymous quote from a friend who said she’d dropped off Daniels to meet Trump at a hotel, and quotes from The Dirty owner, who said that he had spoken to Daniels in 2011 and she had confirmed the affair.
It lacked: any mention of payments, a hush money contract or any corroborating evidence beyond the two secondhand accounts…
The story wasn’t close to being publishable, and my decision to hold it was a no-brainer. I didn’t do it to help Trump and never said nor implied otherwise. It was such an easy call that I never even informed my direct boss or anyone in management about it.
Here come Da Judge (Napolitano), President Trump's bad week, "The president has serious and powerful tormentors whom he can't overcome by mockery alone" George Conway Torches Trump in Rare Public Remarks: U.S. Nearing a ‘Banana Republic’ Under This President. The banana republic part is where the CIA and the FBI try to deep six the President.
From the New Reform Club, Part II: The Mystery of Senator Richard Blumenthal v. President Donald J Trump. Why is Judge Sullivan sitting on on the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss the Emoluments Clause case against the President was due circa December 7, 2018.
From WaahPoo! ‘Menopause lasts longer than that’: Manafort’s ‘shockingly lenient’ sentence ridiculed. Poor Steven Colbert hurt worst. But in a more serious article, it doesn't seem unusual at all, Is Paul Manafort’s sentence too light? He fared worse than many fraudsters, data shows.
Well, the stupid need representation too, Rep. Tlaib Botches Impeachment Explanation: ‘Oh, My God, What’s the Expression?’
Post a Comment