Some Relaxing Russiagate

Well, we see seem to be calming down a bit from the Cohen testimony, now  Democrats Are Interminably 'Waiting for Mueller', Just as in Samuel Beckett's Absurdity

But here’s something we do know. While the nation’s eyes have been riveted on the Mueller Russian Collusion investigation, its father, the Clinton Email investigation, has been quietly swept under the rug, pushed into the oubliette, stricken from the public’s consciousness.

In part it is a function of rhetoric. “Russian Collusion” sounds serious, especially since the Great Russian Reset, supposedly delivered by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has itself been reset and we are now watching reruns of McCarthy-era Red Menace movies. “What if Donald Trump is Putin’s stooge/puppet/poodle/mole/Manchurian candidate?” That’s the sort of question Mad Max Boot asks everyday before breakfast, even though the president in 2016, when the alleged Russian Collusion was taking place, was B. Obama, the director of the CIA was the Gus Hall-voting John Brennan, and the director of National Intelligence was James Clapper.

But if “Russian Collusion” sounds, or at least can be made to sound, scary, “email server” is, let’s face it, boring. Try it out on your friends: “Hillary Clinton used Gmail to send and receive emails.” “Yeah, so let’s say she did. What’s the big deal?” The dog won’t hunt.

In fact, though, it is a very big deal, so big that the Department of Justice itself, beginning with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, made the decision that Clinton was not to be prosecuted unless and until an unavoidable case against her was staring them all in the face. So she ran a private, unsecured server from her home. So there were tons of classified and at least a couple dozen top secret documents passing through that cyber highway. Did she intend to compromise national security by acting cavalierly with her government’s secrets?

No, I don't believe she did, but I believe she intentionally broke the law in an attempt to conceal the personal dealing to build the Clinton machine while in office. So the crime had intent, but the intention was not to harm national security, but to obscure her other crimes of self-dealing in office.

Via PJ Media's Live Blog: Sundance at CTH: Lynne Patton: “Michael Cohen turned on the President because Mueller threatened to throw his wife in jail for up to 30 years”…

4) What many of you may not be aware of is the fact that I can personally confirm that the ONLY reason Michael Cohen “turned on” the President of the United States is because Mueller threatened to throw his wife in jail for up to 30 years. Period. She is the co-guarantor of a $20M personal loan that Mueller discovered Michael secured back in 2015 by falsely inflating the value of his taxi medallions – effectively making her part & parcel to the federal charge of “Making False Statements to a Financial Institution,” to which Cohen ultimately plead guilty. This is also the reason why Cohen’s longtime taxi medallion partner, Evgeny “Gene” Freidman, was granted immunity. (read more)
This is a rather stunning statement. However, it holds the elements of truth and explanation as to why the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller/Andrew Weissmann, would pass off their assembled Cohen prosecution to the Southern District of New York.

If this leverage against Cohen’s wife to gain virtually unlimited legal and political cooperation is true; and it does follow a pre-established pattern of unethical prosecutorial conduct previously displayed by Andrew Weissmann; then many of the issues surrounding the behavior of Michael Cohen do begin to make sense.

Interestingly, this type of unlawful coercion and threat to compel a guilty plea and cooperation from a defendant are specifically prohibited . . .

Probably true, and probably not written down, since that would be illegal. I'd love to see Mueller and Weissman subjected to an investigation themselves, however. Which would explain why Cohen changed his tune "Wow, just revealed that Michael Cohen wrote a 'love letter to Trump' manuscript for a new book that he was pushing."

Dan Greenfield at Front Page: The Media and Michael Cohen Deserve Each Other

The dueling news stories summed up the country’s two political movements. Republicans were trying to dismantle weapons of mass destruction, while Democrats were deploying weapons of mass distraction.

Axios, Democrats' post-Mueller plan. Investigate and smear. WaPoo is still putsching the discredited theory that Stone notified Trump that Wikileaks was going to release the DNC emails. Politics
Two days in July: As Republicans convened in Cleveland, did Trump receive a heads-up about WikiLeaks? The only problem with that is that the Wikileaks had already publicly announced that they were going to release the emails. And if true, it would not have been a crime. But now they're trying to tell it as Trump lying to Mueller about it.

And speaking of Roger Stone and WaPoo, Judge orders Roger Stone to explain imminent release of book that may violate gag order

In the new controversy, Jackson, in a brief order posted on the court’s electronic docket after office hours Friday, said she was allowing Stone’s defense team to file under seal a motion apparently to clarify the court’s gag order and an unspecified accompanying exhibit, and ordered a court clerk to make public Stone’s request.

But Jackson also ordered Stone’s attorneys to explain by Monday why they waited until now in making that request to disclose the “imminent general rel[e]ase” of a book, which Jackson said “was known to the defendant.”

Jackson said Stone’s attorneys could have told the court about the unidentified book either in a February court filing or the Feb. 21 hearing on whether she should impose a gag order to limit prejudicial pretrial publicity and ensure Stone’s right to a fair trial.
That was particularly so, she noted, because prosecutors specified their request for an order providing that Stone “should not be talking about this Court. He should not be talking about the special prosecutor,” Jackson said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis also argued in the hearing that an order should say, “This Court should not be criticized by Mr. Stone. The government should not be impugned by Mr. Stone. The integrity of this case should not be impugned by Mr. Stone,” Jackson noted.

I don't see why the judge could possibly object to the release of a book. If it hurts Stone, that's on him, but why should he be denied the right to speak (even through books) in his own defense?

Politico, Trump’s money man draws unwelcome spotlight - Allen Weisselberg's longtime loyalty to Trump will be tested by demands that he testify before Congress He should give them as much help as Lois Lerner did the Republicans. Declare his innocence, then take the 5th.