So, I managed to misplace this article for a couple of days. Andy McCarthy thinks that the D.C. Circus (en banc) will find against Flynn (and the DOJ) and remand the case back into Judge (to use the word loosely) Sullivan's arms. From NR, He’ll Eventually Prevail, but Flynn Stands to Lose the Mandamus Fight
To summarize, I expect the full court will rule against mandamus, probably by a 7–3 or 8–2 vote, along the party lines of a circuit that tilts heavily Democratic. The two Republican appointees who formed the panel majority in favor of issuing the writ will no doubt dissent, and perhaps pick up another vote or two, but no more. It will be interesting to see whether a majority opinion, while denying the writ, admonishes Sullivan that a judge (a) should afford the executive branch a presumption of good faith, (b) should not second-guess the executive’s reasoning or probe its motives in dismissing a prosecution, and (c) may not appoint amici to serve as parallel prosecutors.And now, onto Kevin Clinesmith's imminent guilty plea. At Da Fed Mollie Hemingway argues that the Media is Downplaying FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea To Hide Their Collusion,
Once mandamus is denied, the Flynn case will be sent back to Judge Sullivan. Will he drag his feet to make General Flynn sweat it out? The circuit court indicated disapproval of that prospect. Will Sullivan, despite all the rabble-rousing, just grant the dismissal motion without much more fanfare, as his lawyer suggested he might? That would be a pleasant surprise, but I’m not holding my breath. Will the judge turn the hearing into a circus and try to put the Trump Justice Department on trial? It remains a possibility, though less of one if the circuit prudently warns against it. Will Sullivan deny the dismissal motion and perhaps even try to sentence Flynn? I have to think the Justice Department would petition for mandamus at that point, and its case would be strong. Or would Justice and/or Flynn then ask the judge to impose sentence quickly, rather than put it off for a few months? That way, if President Trump loses the November election, Flynn might still have time to appeal such lawlessness and get a reversal that would obviate the need for a pardon.
and provides a point by point take down of the NYT's report in New York Times Manipulates FBI Lawyer’s Guilty Plea To Hide Real Spygate News. No surprise there."Now that we actually have our first example here of criminal wrongdoing, the media are kind of downplaying it and acting like it's not a big deal. And that's understandable because...they were some of the worst offenders in perpetrating this collusion hoax" -@MZHemingway pic.twitter.com/laT9n82Hca— The Federalist (@FDRLST) August 16, 2020
Jonathon Turley: Despite the guilty plea, Democrats still denounce this 'investigation of investigators' with special reference to Joe Biden.
From the start, Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the investigation despite admitting Durham is a respected prosecutor. Leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff deemed the investigation “tainted” and “political.” Biden mocked the very idea of an “investigation of the investigators” and added, “Give me a break. Gosh almighty.”At Red State, 'shipwreckedcrew' nods to Sundance at CTH in There Is A Big “CYA” Footnote In The Mueller Report Seeking to Put Distance Between FBI Attorney Clinesmith and Special Counsel Prosecutors but does a better job explaining it, in my opinion.
These are the same figures who repeatedly cited plea agreements in the special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller as proof that real crimes were waiting to be found. When the plea by former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn was announced, it was cited as the critical development even though FBI agents said they did not believe Flynn had intentionally lied about his conversations with Russian diplomats.
. . .
With news of the criminal plea by Clinesmith, one might expect the media and our members of Congress to demand the same vigorous investigation from Durham as they did from Mueller. The collusion allegations that were noted to launch the Russia investigation were after all ultimately rejected. Durham is by contrast investigating the bias and misconduct.
So we have a collusion investigation that was shown to be based on false or unreliable information. It was launched and maintained by officials who were accused by an inspector general of misconduct, false statements, or procedural errors. Today we have the actual criminal guilty plea. However, many voices in Washington continue to insist that there are no reasons for Durham to continue digging. As Biden says, “Gosh almighty.”
But the Mueller Report wants everyone to believe that while Clinesmith was assigned to the SCO, he was not “supervised” by the SCO — at all times he remained under the “FBI legal supervision” according to the Report. What is noticeably missing is any explanation as to how that was possible since the SCO operated independent of DOJ, and all investigative activity — including the work done by Clinesmith while assigned — was done under the authority of the SCO who answered only to the Attorney General — Rosenstein since Sessions was recused.Also from Turley, Mueller Aide Weissmann Calls On DOJ Attorneys Not To Help On Investigations
At the time the Mueller Report was drafted, Weissmann and the others knew what Clinesmith had done. They knew that the Carter Page FISA — based nearly entirely on the Steele memos — was not supported by sufficient probable cause going all the way back to the initial application in October 2016. That is why the SCO NEVER publicly claimed to have ever relied on the Steele Memos for any purpose.
. . .
To circle back to the original point — the Mueller Report wanted everyone to know when the “excrement hit the rotary oscillator” with regard to Clinesmith that “He didn’t work for us”.
And when the Information was filed as a public document on Friday, Andrew Weissmann went into full-tilt spin mode on Twitter to beat back the implications that follow by claiming the Durham investigation found a “non-crime” to have taken place. Weissman’s distortions of the alleged facts and the law in the issues of “creating a false writing” will be the subject of aother story analyzing many of Weissmann’s recent distortions — and outright lies — on Twitter that I’ll have ready to go in a couple of days. But I would recommend the story written today by Jonathan Turley on the subject.
Suffice it to say that Andrew Weissmann’s efforts over the past 48 hours tells the public everything they need to know to confirm that the SCO investigation, capped off by the Mueller Report, was ALWAYS a partisan hit job on the Trump Presidency. It only came to an end because Pres. Trump received probably the best advice of his term in office when someone told him he should appoint William Barr to be Attorney General.
I was among those who expressed concern when Mueller selected Weissmann due to his history of controversial prosecutorial decisions, including a pattern of prosecutorial overreach in the Enron litigation.Sundance has Sunday Talks – Devin Nunes Discusses Clinesmith and California Taxes…
Weissmann’s recent statements (made before the release of his new book on the Russian investigation) have only served to reaffirm those concerns.
Recently, Weissmann wrote an extraordinary and disturbing New York Times op-ed (with former Defense Department special counsel Ryan Goodman). In the column, he appeared to call on Justice Department lawyers to undermine the Durham investigation as well as the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Bash’s investigation into the “unmasking” requests by Obama administration officials. They wrote “Justice Department employees in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.”
Consider that line for a moment. Weissmann is openly calling on attorneys to refuse to help on investigations that could raise questions about his own decisions. Durham is looking at a pattern errors, false statements, bias, and now criminal conduct in the Russian investigation. There is obviously overlap with the Mueller investigation which discussed many of the same underlying documents and relied on work by some of the same individuals. The failure to address misconduct, bias, or criminal conduct by such individuals would be embarrassing to both Weissmann and Mueller. Despite that obvious conflict of interest, Weissmann is calling on attorneys to stand down.
It is the same troubling position that was once taken by Sally Yates, who told an entire federal agency not to assist the President in his travel ban.
From Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Ex-FBI Counterintelligence Chief Facing Scrutiny Over Steele Dossier Briefing. Will Bill Priestap be the next domino to fall for lying to Congress? It seemed to me he had a shred of conscience, if only a shred.
Judicial Watch Uncovers Timeline of Fusion GPS/Steele Going Back to 2015. The crowd had been working for the DNC for a long time; even before Trump appeared on the horizon. They were getting set to take down any opposition to Hillary.
A review of Lee Smiths book The Permanent Coup at WaEx, Russiagate and the wilderness of mirrors
In his new book, Smith expands on his theory to provide broader context for The Plot Against the President and to take account of more recent developments — the impeachment, the coronavirus lockdowns, and the protests sparked by the death of George Floyd. In Smith’s current version, Russiagate is only the highest-profile manifestation of a “permanent coup” by Obama and his inner circle dating back to at least the Iran deal and running through to the present day. As Smith puts it late in the book, “The deep state wasn’t the protagonist in the anti-Trump operation, it was an instrument that Barack Obama used in his ongoing effort to transform America.”Jerry Dunleavy, WaEx, ‘Spygate’ figure Stefan Halper wanted to be Trump’s secretary of state, recording suggests. More from Steven Schrage. It wouldn't be the first time a frustrated wannabe turned on the President.
At Da Fed, Congressional Oversight Is Broken. Here’s How To Fix It. I don't think it can be fixed; improved maybe. Let's start by getting rid of Pierre Delecto. Matt Vespa at Town Hall, Is Mitt Romney the One Blocking Russian Collusion Subpoenas For James Comey and John Brennan?
WaPoo, Senate panel told Justice Dept. of suspicions over Trump family members’ Russia testimony. but even they admit that Congressional referrals are usually politics and shockingly, (not), Four Years After ‘Lock Her Up’ Was Heavily Criticized, Calls For Prosecution Of Trump Gain Steam (Anders Hagstrom at da Caller). Just so you know what they're going to be up to if they get control.
Linked at Pirate's Cove at the daily If All You See.
Post a Comment