Thursday, August 8, 2019

Russiagate: WaPoo Rides to Strzok's Rescue

Well, you could have guessed that the WaPoo (30 day code) would carry water for Peter Strzok: Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump texts got him fired from the FBI, sues for reinstatement
The FBI agent whose anti-Trump text messages got him removed from the investigation into Russia’s election interference and ultimately fired from the bureau asked in a lawsuit Tuesday to be reinstated and awarded back pay, arguing he was unfairly terminated for criticizing the president.

Peter Strzok asserted in the suit that the Trump administration had “consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees” — but only if that speech praised the president and attacked his opponents. The former FBI agent who President Trump has attacked repeatedly alleged that his removal was “part of a broader campaign against the very principle of free speech,” which he said was “initiated and led by” the commander in chief.

“It’s indisputable that his termination was a result of Trump’s unrelenting retaliatory campaign of false information, attacks and direct appeals to top officials,” Aitan Goelman, Strzok’s lawyer, said in a statement. “Today, Pete Strzok is fighting back, and sending a message that the Administration’s purposeful disregard for constitutional rights must not be tolerated.”
Via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 08.07.19 (Evening Edition), the Victory Girls: Peter Strzok Sues FBI, Whines That His Privacy & Freedom Of Speech Were Violated

also from the Wombat, Joe gives us Sara Carter: The Rat’s Are Turning On Each Other. “What’s About To Unfold Is The Real Story.”

Capt. Ed at Hot Air on the Judicial Watch: Does The FBI Take Leaks Seriously?
Depends on the leak, one supposes, and who benefits from it. In the wake of the Department of Justice decision not to prosecute James Comey for leaking materials later classified to the New York Times, Judicial Watch received records on 14 referrals for leaks by other FBI personnel. In most cases, the FBI and DoJ took lesser action than recommended by investigators, and they’d like to know why . . .
Paul Sperry at RCI accuses Mueller of lying to Congress, as if that's a crime! Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress. It's a little technical, but it seems he might have misrepresented whether his news conference  announcing the end of his investigation clarifying whether the Russian troll farms were known to be Russian government directed (the answer is no) was aimed at satisfying Judge Dabney Friedrich's demand that his team come clean :
Republican lawmakers allege Special Counsel Robert Mueller may have perjured himself before Congress in his sworn testimony last month with an untruthful answer about why he held an earlier press briefing.

Recently released court documents suggest Mueller may have made his surprise appearance before the press in Washington on May 29 as damage control after a federal judge privately threatened to hold his team in criminal contempt of court over what she called misleading language in his final report about Russian government interference in the 2016 election.

Under oath, Mueller denied the judge’s action had anything to do with his holding the press conference.

In the hastily arranged 9-minute press conference, Mueller announced that he was ending his investigation -- which was not news -- and concluded it without taking any questions. He made a point, however, to stress that the Russians he had indicted were “private” entities and "presumed innocent."

What Mueller didn’t tell the country was that the day before, his case against two Russian internet “trolling” firms had taken a sudden turn for the worse. It was a key part of his narrative that the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win.

On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Although no reporters were allowed inside, it is now known that Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation.

Concerned that Mueller’s words could prejudice a jury and jeopardize the defendants' right to a fair trial, Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction.

“The government shall refrain from making or authorizing any public statement that links the alleged conspiracy in the indictment to the Russian government,” Friedrich stated in her ruling, which was private at the time. “Willful failure to do so in the future will result in the initiation of contempt proceedings.”

The judge explained that Mueller’s report improperly referred to the defendants’ “social media operations” as one of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential elections” carried out by the Russian government. She also pointed out that he also referred to their Internet trolling as “active measures” — a term of art that typically includes operations conducted by Russian intelligence to influence international affairs. She said this was a departure from the government’s original February 2018 indictment, which “does not link the defendants to the Russian government" and “alleges only private conduct by private actors."

Friedrich further directed the prosecution to make clear that its allegations are simply that and “remain unproven.” She also admonished Mueller’s team from expressing "an opinion on the defendant’s guilt or innocence."

The next day, May 29, Mueller's statement at the Department of Justice press podium apparently mollified the judge. In a recently unsealed July 1 opinion, Friedrich wrote that Mueller had “demonstrated” the government had complied with her order with his statements to the media.

“In delivering his remarks," she said, "the special counsel carefully distinguished between the efforts by 'Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military' and the efforts detailed ‘in a separate indictment’ by ‘a private [italics in original] Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens [italics in original] posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.’”

In other words, Mueller's hastily assembled appearance in the press briefing room helped head off a public rebuke by the judge hearing one of the signature indictments of Mueller’s 22-month investigation.
Give him a break; he hardly knew what was in the report. Capt. Ed, Mueller Might Have Committed Perjury In Congressional Testimony
Under normal circumstances, a perjury prosecution requires two elements: materiality and intent. The state would have to prove that the question was material to the proceeding in such a way that it impaired it, and that there was a criminal mens rea to lie about it. This seems to fall short on both counts, especially to the extent that any evidence could conclusively show either. You’d have to prove that Mueller’s intent for the presser was beyond a reasonable doubt solely or primarily aimed at satisfying the judge and that the point was relevant to the committee review of Mueller’s investigation. It’s very possible to construct a theory of perjury or obstruction in this case, but prosecuting it successfully would likely be impossible.

Of course, some of the people caught up in the Mueller team’s process crimes had the same complaint about their supposed obstruction, too. Defenders of both George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn have argued that Mueller’s team took the worst possible interpretations from their interviews and used them as a bludgeon to bully them into plea deals. Judge T.S. Ellis had similar issues with Mueller’s team in their prosecution of Paul Manafort, and at one time seemed prepared to throw out the case because of it.

At the very least, though, Mueller was less than fully honest and forthcoming with that answer. After all, someone made the argument to Judge Friedrich that Mueller’s public statement had been responsive to her order, and it seems very doubtful that it was the attorneys for the defendants in the case. If Mueller was judged by Mueller’s own standard, he might be facing a similar fate as those he prosecuted. He still might get some attention from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who is conducting a review of all the DoJ actions in relation to Russiagate. The last word on this will almost certainly be Horowitz’, and it might not be kind at all.
Ace notices Brian Williams and Robert Mueller's Pick to Lead Entire FBI Counterintelligence Division: Trump's Choice of Dates to Mourn the Deaths of the Shooting Victims Is Actually a Secret Neo-Nazi "Numerology" Code
Batshit, bugfuck insane.

And this is the former FBI assistant director and Muller's handpicked choice to lead the Counterintelligence division.

A former FBI assistant director used numerology on MSNBC Monday to link neo-Nazism to President Donald Trump's decision to fly flags at half-staff to honor the victims of shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
Frank Figluizzi floated the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory during an interview with Brian Williams.
Figluizzi, an MSNBC contributor, said Trump’s decision will appeal to neo-Nazis and supporters of Adolf Hitler because of the date that the flags will return to full mast. Earlier on Monday, Aug. 5, Trump ordered flags to be lowered for three days in order to honor the 31 victims of the two mass shootings.
Figluizzi said that he was "not going to imply" that Trump deliberately timed the flag maneuvers to appeal to neo-Nazis, but then he laid out his theory to an unflinching Brian Williams.
"The president said that we will fly our flags at half mast, until August 8th. That's 8/8. Now, I'm not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary that's being demonstrated by the White House,” he said.
I'm not outright saying it, but, you know, I'm strongly hinting slash outright saying it.
Hey, they got air time to fill, and they're not proud or tired. 

And speaking of batshit, bugfuck insane, Jerry Nadler Renews Effort to Target Justice Brett Kavanaugh from Breitbart. I think the goal is to make it possible to discredit any ruling in which Kavanaugh provides a winning vote, as they have tried countless times with Thomas.

No comments:

Post a Comment