Russiagate: POTUS Pardons Papadop

 And others. Fox, President Trump grants several high-profile pardons

President Trump issued full pardons to 15 individuals and commuted part or all of the sentences of an additional five people, the White House announced Tuesday.


Included in the list are Duncan Hunter, a former GOP congressman from California, Chris Collins, a former GOP representative from New York and Trump campaign advisor George Papadapoulous.

The pardons and commutations came at the recommendation of Trump allies in Congress and in the media, and at the recommendation of Alice Johnson, whose sentence was commuted at the request of Kim Kardashian.

Papadapoulous had been convicted of making false statements during the Mueller investigation.

He was sentenced to 14 days in prison and a $9,500 fine for lying to the FBI during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election, after he pleaded guilty to misleading federal investigators about his meetings with Russia-connected Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud.

The White House said Tuesday Papadapoulous had been charged with a "process-related crime" even though "Mueller stated in his report that he found no evidence of collusion in connection with Russia’s attempts to interfere in the election."

Alex van der Zwaan, who also pleaded guilty to lying to Mueller investigators and was sentenced to 30 days in prison, received a pardon from the president.

I'm fully on board with the Papadop pardon. Papadop had already served his sentence, so the pardon restores his non-felon status. It will be even sweeter if Andy Weissman whines about it. I don't have much opinion on van der Zwaan, but any poke in the eye to the Weissman is worthy. John Sexton at Hot Air, Trump Grants Clemency To 20 Including A Pardon For George Papadopoulos “Today’s pardon helps correct the wrong that Mueller’s team inflicted on so many people.”Mairead McArdle at NR, Trump Pardons Campaign Advisers, Blackwater Contractors. At CTH, sundance makes the case for A Reason To Pardon Julian Assange. I could live with that. I've never understood the difference between Assange publishing US govt secrets and CBS (say as an example) publishing US govt. secrets. I'd like to hear what he has to offer regarding the DNC leaks too. He claims he can proved they didn't come from Russia. 

Fox, Special counsel Durham investigation 'making good progress,' Barr says "Source tells Fox News that Durham is now 'frequently' working out of Washington, DC" I don't want good progress; I want good results. From Da Wire, AG Barr Gives Update On Durham Probe: ‘Group of People’ Attempted To ‘Topple’ Trump Admin. He's been steadfast on this, if nothing else.

Mr. Barr describes an overarching objective of ensuring that there is “one standard of justice.” That, he says, is why he appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the FBI’s 2016 Crossfire Hurricane probe. “Of course the Russians did bad things in the election,” he says. “But the idea that this was done with the collusion of the Trump campaign — there was never any evidence. It was entirely made up.” The country deserved to know how the world’s premier law-enforcement agency came to target and spy on a presidential campaign.

Mr. Barr says Mr. Durham’s appointment should not have been necessary. Mr. Mueller’s investigation should have exposed FBI malfeasance. Instead, “the Mueller team seems to have been ready to blindly accept anything fed to it by the system,” Mr. Barr says, adding that this “is exactly what DOJ should not be.”

But, as Chuck Ross notes at Da Caller, AG Barr Sees No Evidence Of CIA Wrongdoing In Trump-Russia Probe. NewsMax, Brennan Calls Durham Investigation 'Trolling,' Mocks Barr. I'm not as big a man as Barr; I'd put him in jail for being an ass, not to mention perjury. 

"If there was no basis for this, why was I interviewed by Mr. Durham for eight hours? Bill Barr used to complain about he didn't see the predication for the FBI investigation into Trump engagements with the Russians. What was the predication of this Durham investigation?

The should have used the rack. Ed Timperlake at Am Think says The Attorney General cannot exonerate the CIA. No evidence is not the same as exoneration. But I want to know if the CIA had anything to do with the Mysterious Mr. Mifsud. 

My point is simple: The CIA is a large security-compartmented organization and by design often does not symbolically want the left hand to know what the right hand is doing.

For the AG to wander into that hall of mirrors and make a grand lasting statement about CIA staying in its lane and not “spying” on candidate and then-President Donald Trump is preposterous on the merits.

Before the historical record sets to concrete, for the AG to say that the CIA stayed in their lane, a penalty flag must be thrown that such a blanket denial by AG Barr is factually illogical, not supportable by even the recent the historic record, and should not be allowed to stand.

Thomas Farnan at TNP on  The Banality Of Bill Barr. Lloyd Billingsly at Front Page, Deep State Strike Force

Speaking of SES and Deep State, Fox, Nunes calls for new criminal referral over Peter Stzrok texts and Jerry Dunleavy at WaEx, Strzok said Steele dossier was meant to 'influence' and not just 'inform' in September 2016. Sundance has Sunday Talks, Devin Nunes Outlines the Common Sense Explanations Behind Current Issues Video embargoed by Fox.

On the Spygate story Nunes points to the recently released text messages from Lisa Page and Peter Strzok and states a criminal referral for the treatment of George Papadopoulos should be forthcoming.

From AOL (they still exist?) Chris Christie says Michael Flynn 'never belongs anywhere near the White House'. Which may be proof he does. 

Andrea Widberg at Am Think thinks Overstock’s colorful founder has tales to tell about the Russia hoax. I do too. 

And last, Tristan Justice at Da Fed informs us that Tech Billionaire Reid Hoffman Funded Legal Firm For Spygate Linchpin Fusion GPS

Taxing Times at Russiagate

The New York Times has opened a new front in the war on Donald Trump with only a few weeks before the election, after obtaining what it claims to be his tax returns for the past many years. I say claim, because they won't actually show the documents, likely out of fear that somehow the person(s) who leaked the documents could be identified. There are basically three possible sources. 1) A leak at the IRS, which would be federal crime. The federal bureaucracy has not shied away from felonies in it's pursuit of Trump, as witness the leak of the transcripts of Flynn's conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak. 2) A leak from a financial institution (eg. tax preparer) in possession of the documents for work reasons, also a crime, and a breach of fiduciary duty, or 3) a deliberate preemptive leak by Trump or part of the Trump organization, to get ahead of something coming. Seeing it's the NYT, this seems unlikely. Anyway, as Althouse  reports "Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750."

"He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made. As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed. Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the Internal Revenue Service over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed, and received, after declaring huge losses. An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.."

The NYT reports, saying that it "has obtained tax-return data extending over more than two decades for Mr. Trump and the hundreds of companies that make up his business organization, including detailed information from his first two years in office."

Also, from NYT, via Althouse. "Ultimately, Mr. Trump has been more successful playing a business mogul than being one in real life.". In both posts, most of the fun is in the comments.

It's very interesting that the NYT, strongly motivated to find tax crimes and connections to Russia, seems to have only found that Trump might be a faker — not the billionaire business genius he purports to be. But, it seems, the main thing he is doing is putting more money into his businesses than he takes out, and that may be a wise or at least legally authorized way to run his affairs. Now, he's forced to explain that to us, and maybe we will be outraged that the tax laws are currently arranged to allow people to escape taxes, but maybe we will accept instruction that the outrage should be directed at Congress... even at Joe Biden.

Really, it's no secret that both real estate investing, and entertainment, Trump largest areas of endeavor, offer ample opportunities to shield income from taxes, largely due to tax breaks from Congress, passed with Democrats complicity.

Lol at this offhand detail in the Times piece: "Nor do [tax records] reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia." https://t.co/XDQjag1gwC

— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) September 27, 2020

I&E, Will Media Ever Ask About Biden’s Corrupt Deals As Vice President?. Not only no, but hell no. Sundance at CTH, New York Times Fails at Outlining President Trump’s Taxes Again…

In the article the Times completely obfuscates the way income taxes are strategically offset by depreciation, mortgage interest and the entire reason why real estate ownership is viewed as a business.

John Carney writing for Breitbart gets it:

[…] So imagine our guy took out an $8 million mortgage at five percent, paying $2 million cash. Now he’s got to pay $400,000 in mortgage payments. He wants to make at least that much so he charges tenants an aggregate of $425,000, which after upkeep comes out to $410,000 of net income. (Remember, if the bank didn’t think he could make more in rent than the mortgage payment, it probably wouldn’t have lent him the money.) The interest payment on the loan–let’s call it $390,000–is deductible from his income, leaving him with $20,000 in net income. He gets to keep that and pay no taxes on it, however, because he still gets to apply the $370,000 depreciation charge. He tells the IRS he lost $350,000.

Under our tax code, ordinary business expenses can be deducted in the year they are incurred. But when a business pays for a long-lasting item expected to produce income–like machinery, vehicles, or an apartment building–it is considered a capital investment. Instead of getting to write-off the cost all at once, the business is required to write it off over the course of decades. After the 1986 tax code, this was set at 27.5 years for residential real estate. (more)

Anyone who has ever operated a business knows that offsetting income is one of the primary reasons to be self-employed. Additionally, the Times completely skips over the tens-of-millions in payroll taxes paid by the Trump organization and tens-of-millions in property and sales taxes paid by all of the various Trump properties.

The National Pulse, NYT’s 10,000-Word Trump Tax ‘Exposé’ Reveals NO Russian Links, NO Illegality, And Admits Left Will Be ‘Unfulfilled’ By The Report  Insty,  NYT EXONERATES TRUMP: Hoping he'll fix the link. Stacy McCain, @RealDonaldTrump: Still #Winning

When your enemies keep breaking the law to attack you, we can conclude that your enemies are bad people:

So getting back to more traditional Russiagate, sadly, (via Sundance), Bartiromo: “Sources Confirm No Interim Durham Report or Indictments Before Election”… video at link. 

What Ms. Bartiromo encapsulates is in-line with my own research and interactions with people very close to the DC events. In essence, this sentiment; in combination with AG Bill Barr having a keen awareness of the undercurrent frustration outside the DC bubble; is at the heart of why USAO Jeff Jensen has been channeling information to Michael Flynn’s defense counsel Sidney Powell.

Breitbart, FNC’s Bartiromo: Durham Report Before Election ‘Unlikely’. 'Shipwreckedcrew' at Red State digs deeper, Why No Durham Activity Before Election — Likely the Interview of Agent William Barnett

Bill Barr and Robert Mueller have been friends for 30+ years, going back to their days together in the Reagan Justice Department.

It is my belief that Bill Barr sees the work of the SCO, and the drafting of the SCO report, as being not the product of the Robert Mueller he has known since the 1980s, but instead, the work of anti-Trump Democrat partisans who Mueller brought to the SCO. As a private citizen — and former Attorney General — he sent a scathing legal memo to Rod Rosenstein in the summer of 2018 challenging the public reports about the nature of a criminal “obstruction” investigation against the Office of the President that was being conducted by the SCO as a surrogate for DOJ. When he was confirmed as Attorney General — and the SCO staff knew they would be reporting to him now and no longer to Rosenstein — the SCO announced in just a matter of a few weeks that the investigation would be shut down.

Were those two events connected? Well, Andrew Weissmann provided the answer to that question yesterday in an excerpt from his book published in a Politico story:

But the limitations of our report were underscored on the night of March 24, 2019, as I stood in the doorway of my apartment in Washington, reading Barr’s four-page letter on my iPad. Just two days after Mueller had handed in our final report—the product of 22 months of intensive work by 59 prosecutors, agents and analysts—Barr issued a letter purporting to summarize our report.

Barr’s letter was a shot across the bow, signaling that the checking function Mueller provided on the actions of the president had come to an abrupt end.

Weissmann “gives away the game” without even realizing the evil in his presumption.

Where in the Special Counsel regulations does it say that such an appointment by the Attorney General is to serve as a “checking function” on the “actions of the President”?

Jerry Dunleavy, WaEx,  'More damning': Lindsey Graham hints at significant declassification related to Russia investigation. 

Graham offered some insight into what the declassified records might contain. 

"There’s three buckets here," he said of alleged wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia investigation.

The first focuses on whether there was "any legitimate reason" for special counsel Robert Mueller to be investigating the Trump team for a crime regarding Russia. "In 2017, there was no evidence that anybody on the Trump campaign was working with the Russians," Graham said.

The other two areas, according to Graham, relate to how the FBI "lied its a-- off" to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to obtain warrants to wiretap a member of President Trump's 2016 campaign and the case against retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was briefly Trump's first national security adviser.

Jeff Charles at Red State, Sen. Lindsey Graham Drops Another Bomb About FBI Misconduct During Russia Investigation. Insty cites the WSJ editorial 

The FBI’s Bad Intelligence: The bureau relied on a suspected Russian agent for its 2016 wiretaps.

It was worse than we thought. We’re referring to the FBI’s 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia, as new documents this week reveal.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham on Thursday released newly declassified FBI documents that contain this stunner: The bureau relied on a suspected Russian agent for the information it used to obtain a secret surveillance warrant against former Trump adviser Carter Page.

Four years into accusations about Russia-Trump collusion, we finally learn that Russia’s main conduit for disinformation may have been America’s FBI. Vladimir Putin must be howling with laughter.

While the Democrats and NeverTrumpers were accusing Trump of being Putin’s tool, actually it was the Resistance that was Putin’s tool all along. . . .

The National Pulse has an EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: ‘The Russia Lie’ Was A Washington Political Hit On An Outsider

Chuck Ross, Comey Says He Has Not Read Recent Report About Steele Dossier Source, But Will Testify About It Next Week

 

And speaking of worthless and corrupt FBI directors, Senator Ron Johnson Eviscerates FBI Director Chris Wray – With Documents to Support… (Sundance, video at link), and at Da Wire, White House Chief Of Staff Chastises FBI Director Over Voter Fraud Comments: ‘Has A Hard Time Finding Emails In His Own FBI’. That left a mark.

Lee Smith at JTN. 'Permanent Coup' excerpt: How Biden pushed to quash investigation of company paying son $80k/month

Laura Italiano, Michael Cohen living large in ‘home confinement’ as he takes a stroll in Central Park. Why it's almost as if authorities aren't taking his crimes very seriously.

Speaking of crimes, at Am Think, Jack Cashill is still talking about Seth Rich: The Murder Washington Doesn't Want Solved. I'm a skeptic, but it really could be that he was the source of the DNC hacks to wikileaks. 

Some Sunday Morning Russiagate

Not much new on this Sunday morning, but a fair amount of older issues still being rehashed. For example, McEnany calls out White House press corps for lack of interest in Mueller team wiping phones "'They simply don't care,' press secretary tells Sean Hannity"  (Fox).

"Now we learn what Mueller's team was doing," she said. "Several dozens, think about that, several dozens of devices returned damaged, wiped clean, some of them intentionally so. One of those devices was Andrew Weissmann's ... who was rebuked 9-0 by the Supreme Court for prosecutorial overreach and misconduct -- and Lisa Page too, among these offenders.

"Muller is saying, 'We'll prosecute you for process, while we, several dozens of us, are engaging in the same kind of obstruction.' That is uncalled for."

She's such a meanie. Certainly, the WaPoo hasn't published anything about it, and I suspect you would find the same thing if you could search the NYT archives. On Da Hill, Tal Axelrod deigns to take note that Johnson asks DOJ watchdog to investigate Mueller team phones over erased information

From Matt Vespa at Town Hall, Are There Durham Indictments Coming? Fox News Reporter's DOJ Source Told Him to Set His Alarm Clock I certainly hope so. Strzok and Comey are my first choices. 

Remember when I said, wake me when there are indictments and or arrests? Well, a solid DOJ source just told me to "set my alarm clock."
I said, I'll believe it when I see it.#DurhamReport

— Kevin Corke (@kevincorke) September 11, 2020

John Solomon at JTN on the Flynn story Ex-judge reviewing Flynn cases urges guilty plea be upheld.

AP tries to keep the "Russia, Russia!" narrative alive with Biden audio first shared by ‘Russian agent’ thrives online, desperately trying to conceal the fact that Biden threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine if they did not fire a prosecutor looking into the company that Hunter Biden was on the board of. There are lots of weasel words.

From sundance at CTH, Tucker Carlson Questions DOJ Aggression Toward Julian Assange….

 

Assange is an odd case. I can see nothing he did that seems other than as an investigative reporter of sorts. We don't prosecute reporters who publish classified data that they get from other sources. Otherwise, the entire Washington press corps would be in jail. Obama pardoned his partner in crime, Bradley aka  Chelsea Manning, the  US Army soldier who actually sent the classified data to Assange. Why does DOJ have such a hard on for him?

Tyler O'Neil at PJ Media on CNN's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week

2. Chris Cuomo and Stormy Daniels

On Wednesday, Carlson released another tape. This time, the recording concerned a conversation between Cohen and CNN host Chris Cuomo. Carlson condemned Cuomo for manufacturing a “scripted drama, written for the Democratic Party” by preparing Trump’s lawyer to give an interview on the network regarding Trump’s alleged hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels.

“I think the way this conversation goes is almost exactly the way we’re having it right now. Which is, where I say, ‘This looks shady,’ and you say, ‘It looks shady to you because you’re coming in with a specific intention,'” Carlson said, quoting Cuomo.

Cuomo instructed Cohen on how to dodge questions about a shell corporation he had allegedly used to make the Daniels payments.

“Quote: ‘I’m not being shady,’ Cuomo instructed Cohen to say. ‘I was being legal, and I did it my right way. You’re wrong about the LLC. I’ve used it for other things. I have tons of LLCs. I did not form it just to do this. And even if I had, my whole point would have been to keep it quiet. But that happens to just not be true.’ End quote,” Carlson read.

The Fox News host also reported that Cuomo actually advised Trump’s lawyer to threaten Cuomo on air with a defamation lawsuit if he “speculated” that he was “paid back by Trump or the campaign” for the alleged payments.

The recording also included Cuomo informing Cohen he’ll make “some phone calls” to make sure the questions he would ask wouldn’t put him in legal trouble.

Matt Taibi,  Tape shows: ethically, CNN chief a little shaky "A conversation between Jeff Zucker and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen removes all doubt: our hated president is a beloved commodity to network executives"

Russiagate: Today is the Day . . .

So, today is the day that former Mueller team lawyer Kevin Clinesmith is reported to be signing the papers to plead guilty to falsifying evidence to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. I wonder what he gives up for that. Besides a career in law.

Althouse catches Mollie Hemingway at "A New York Times reporter who won a Pulitzer Prize for his role perpetrating the Russia collusion hoax was tasked with framing the news that a former top FBI lawyer was to plead guilty...", which I posted in yesterday's round up. As usual, the fun is in the comment section, which varies from astute lawyers to assholes (not that they can't be both). At NR, Andy McCarthy is Connecting Dots in Clinesmith’s Russiagate Guilty Plea. At NewsMax, Hemmingway: FBI Concealed Exonerating Information 4 Times, while at Power Line, John Hineracker pens About Kevin Clinesmith:

Of all of the Obama administration loyalists who contributed to the Russia collusion hoax, Clinesmith is the one most obviously guilty of a felony: he altered an email he received from the CIA to say that Carter Page was NOT a CIA source, when in fact the email said Page WAS a CIA source, and submitted that fake document to the federal court in order to obtain a FISA warrant. That is worth five years in prison and, of course, the end of his legal career. Clinesmith’s guilty plea is significant, in part, because he may be willing to implicate others who are higher in the DOJ chain of command. More about that later.
. . .
The most pressing question at the moment is whether Clinesmith will implicate higher-ups in his crime. One would assume that no lawyer would commit an offense so blatant as to alter an email from the CIA and then use it to obtain, fraudulently, a warrant to spy on an American citizen, without assurance that he enjoys protection from the top. We can take that as a given.

But two questions remain. First, how high up the food chain can Clinesmith go? If we analogize the Obama Department of Justice to the Mafia, it is safe to assume that Clinesmith’s orders came from someone relatively far down the totem pole. Loretta Lynch, James Comey, et al. would not have compromised themselves by personally authorizing perjury, just as the top Mafia boss does not deal directly with the hit man. Whom can Clinesmith implicate, assuming he is willing to talk? We have no idea.

Second, will Clinesmith benefit more by talking or by remaining silent? Again, using the Mafia as an analogy, most Mafiosis who are caught don’t squeal on higher-ups. They know that if they stay silent and serve their prison term, they will be taken care of when they regain their freedom. Kevin Clinesmith may be in the same position. Prosecutors can urge the court to give him a lighter sentence in exchange for cooperation, but they can’t make his crime go away, and they can’t do anything for Clinesmith when he gets out of prison. At that point he will be a disbarred lawyer, a man without a career.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, can take care of him lavishly and I expect would be willing to do so in return for his silence. So silence may be the better bet. We know, too, that Clinesmith is a loyal if not fanatical Democrat, a self-described member of the “resistance” to our lawfully elected president. We may begin to find out what Clinesmith is able and willing to say when he appears in court in connection with his guilty plea.

Regarding Andy Weismann's tweets in support of Clinesmith, 'Adam Mill' at Am Great says Mueller Veteran Andrew Weissmann Self-Incriminates with Tweets "He had a right to remain silent. But fortunately for those interested in the rule of law, he’s decided instead to incriminate himself in full public view." Read how. Weissman knew Page was innocent of the charges, but let the FISA warrants continue, in the interests of keeping his precious investigation into Trump alive. He helped perpetrate a fraud on the FISA court.

Sundance at CTH brings Lou Dobbs and Devin Nunes Discuss Kevin Clinesmith and Judge Boasberg… Video at link.

Boasberg is a FISA judge; and as an outcome it was he who was manipulated by the false information from Clinesmith.

Unlike them, I'm glad to see Boasberg is on the case; he should be properly righteous about a fraud on FISA court.

At ET, Waiting for Durham May Be Over. Yeah, I think a few more things are going to fall before fall.

Like Koko in “The Mikado,” I have a little list of “society offenders.” Mr. Clinesmith is on that list, but, to be honest, rather far down. True, he doctored evidence and lied in order to bring the awesome police power of the state against an innocent U.S. citizen, but at the end of the day Mr. Clinesmith was a minnow in the pond of corruption that was the deep state “plot to rig an election and destroy a presidency” (to cite the subtitle of Andy McCarthy’s book on the subject, “Ball of Collusion”).
. . .
It’s why I and others have described what Svetlana Lokova calls “Spygate” the “biggest political scandal in U.S. history.” Someone won the presidency that the Deep State, prominently including members of the outgoing administration, did not like. Therefore, they plot to take him out.

The moral is: Democracy is all well and good, so long as the voters vote for a candidate we approve of. Somehow, Donald Trump was elected without the permission—indeed, over the strenuous objections—of the permanent bureaucracy. The whole Trump-Russia narrative was concocted to correct that mistake.

Some interesting comments in Scott Adams Podcast,  Episode 1094 Scott Adams: Witches and Video, Three Civil Wars Scheduled, Low Information Voters, Firenadoes, Homeschooling. You can skip the opening bullshit and get to Russiagate at about 2:40 min.

Julie Kelly at AmGreat also reviews Lee Smith's new book, ‘The Permanent Coup’ Plotters Take the Virtual Stage

In a bit of irony, on the same day—Tuesday—that former deputy attorney general Sally Q. Yates is slated to speak, Lee Smith’s new book, The Permanent Coup: How Enemies Foreign and Domestic Targeted the President, will hit the shelves. Yates, who signed two of the four illicit FISA applications against Trump campaign aide Carter Page, is a decorated soldier in the ongoing coup against Donald Trump.

In a just world, Yates would be doing prison time for presenting fake evidence to a secret federal court in order to spy on a private U.S. citizen based on his political interests; in the Trump era, however, saboteurs like Yates are heralded as heroines of #TheResistance.

Sundance speculates on  Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested – And Why UK Officials Obliged…. Because he was planning on saying the Russians didn't hack the DNC.

And somethings never change, Maxine Waters: Use 25th Amendment to Remove Trump from Office (Breitbart). Hey, it worked on Homeland!

Russiagate on a Fine Sunday Morning

At NR Andy McCarthy is seriously reconsidering his position on whether Judge Sullivan should be removed from the Michael Flynn case (his previous position was no, work it out), Should Judge Sullivan Be Disqualified from Flynn Case? An Appeals Court Is Asking

More to the point, by seeking full-court reconsideration of the mandamus matter when both the Justice Department and Flynn are seeking dismissal of the case, Sullivan is both causing prejudice to the defendant and stoking suspicion about the executive branch’s motives. How, then, could Sullivan continue to be considered a fair and impartial judge, fit to rule on the Justice Department’s dismissal motion?

That question may signal something about the wisdom of the D.C. Circuit judges that I previously failed to appreciate. The Justice Department’s contention that Sullivan lacks standing seemed compelling to me. I was surprised when the Circuit appeared to ignore it in granting Sullivan’s request for full-court review; I thought they’d deny it and let the panel’s ruling stand. But is it possible that the Circuit saw this as a graceful off-ramp? When none of the Circuit’s judges asked for full-court reconsideration, that signaled to Sullivan that if he wanted it, he would have to ask for it himself. The Circuit judges probably calculated that if the irascible Sullivan made a formal application for rehearing en banc, it would be manifest that he had transformed himself into a party in the Flynn case. Then the Circuit could use the disqualification rule to nudge him aside for the sake of maintaining the judiciary’s reputation for objectivity. That would avoid all the downsides of issuing a mandamus writ while gently reminding lower court judges that they are supposed to remain umpires in these contests, not become one of the players.

To sum up, whatever one may have thought about the gravity of Sullivan’s irregular behavior back in May, he has now clearly crossed the Rubicon. It is incumbent on him to recuse himself. If he can’t bring himself to do that — a failure that would further demonstrate a lack of judicial detachment — the D.C. Circuit should disqualify him. Either way, the case should be reassigned to a new judge, who should promptly grant the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss.

As you might remember from yesterday events are suggesting that John Brennan is not a target of prosecutors in John Durham investigation: (Dan Chaitin, WaEx). Capt Ed at Hot Air has some thoughts.

Bear in mind that this is a term of art, something we learned again during the special-counsel probe, and not a fixed label. In any investigation, a person can start off as a witness, turn into a subject, and then become a target. The process can work in the opposite direction, too; this site gives a pretty good overview of the official Department of Justice definitions, while warning at the same time that they’re essentially meaningless. At one time, Donald Trump was told he wasn’t a target in Operation Crossfire Hurricane, but he was at least a subject, and eventually became a target whether the FBI admitted it or not.

At this late date, however, Brennan’s status as a non-target is presumably more static, assuming this report is accurate, of course. Brennan could always leap onto a table and yell, “OF COURSE IT WAS ME ALL ALONG, YOU FOOLS!!”, which could tend to change one’s status in a federal investigation. Short of that, and again assuming NPR’s source is correct, Durham’s not going after Brennan. Attorney General William Barr has already said publicly that Durham’s not going after Barack Obama or Joe Biden, and NBC reported at the link above that James Clapper has been told that Durham’s not interested in interviewing him as part of this investigation.

Who does that leave, if this is true? Probably no one outside the FBI, but perhaps the top man in charge at that time might have reason to sweat. Sally Yates accused James Comey of “going rogue” in his pursuit of Michael Flynn, although she defended the decision to investigate Flynn. She also went after lower-echelon FBI figures for submitting false information on the Carter Page FISA warrants
. . .
If so, that will disappoint many who suspected this went all the way to the Oval Office. Even a Comey indictment wouldn’t be enough to prove a wide-ranging political conspiracy against Trump in the Obama administration, and that seems like a long shot in the Durham probe anyway. However, if Durham feels compelled to write a report laying out a larger narrative, that may indeed have more impact — but Barr has all but committed to sticking to indictments as the only public statements from the Durham probe. Will he stick to that?

Margot Cleveland at Da Fed details how Sally Yates’ Testimony Showed She’s Either Ignorant Or Lying About Russiagate. Why limit yourself when "both" is the better than "either". I'll bet all she reads is the NYT and WaPoo; of course she's ignorant. And an appearance by the still missing Mysterious Mr. Mifsud.

The FBI learned, Yates testified, “that someone affiliated with the Russians had actually approached a foreign policy advisor of the Trump campaign and had told them that the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousand of emails, that could be released anonymously and wanted to know if the campaign was interested in this.”

Later, Sen. Lindsey Graham pushed Yates on this testimony to see if she understood that the individual who had approached Papadopoulos, Joseph Mifsud, was not acting on behalf of Putin. Was that individual “a Russian agent?” Graham queried. “He was connected with Russian intelligence,” Yates responded.

Graham’s guffaw said it all. While Joseph Mifsud’s role in SpyGate may not yet be clear, Yates’ belief that Mifsud was “connected with Russian intelligence” shows she hasn’t a clue about even the most fundamental facts underlying the investigation into the Trump campaign.

There were many other facts Yates did not seem to know, or if she did know them, there is a more troubling implication: the former acting attorney general attempted to mislead the Judiciary Committee and the public. For instance, in discussing the intel the FBI had received concerning Mifsud’s conversation with Papadopoulos about the “thousands of emails,” Yates claimed the FBI received this information in May and then “it actually happened—the emails were then dumped in July.”

But the emails “dumped” in July were those hacked from the Democratic National Committee and released by WikiLeaks, which was an entirely different set of emails than the “thousands of emails” Papadopoulos said Mifsud had claimed the Russians had: According to the special counsel’s office, Papadopoulos “admit” that Mifsud told him “the Russians had emails of Clinton.”

Whether Yates understood this distinction is unclear. It is also unclear which is worse—that she was ignorant on this basic fact or understood the fact but sought to conflate the two distinct categories of emails to justify the investigation.

Althouse on the case of Susan Rice, presumptive VP candidate Susan Rice talks about doing Sunday show appearances after the Benghazi attack — She was "a team player." From an interview in The Atlantic with Edward-Isaac Dovere Demonstrates how she'll lie to the people at the behest of the party.

Jerry Dunleavy, WaEx, Appeals court rules Democrats can sue to enforce Don McGahn subpoena. He already testified to the Mueller team for days, what more do they expect to find, except opportunities to try and smear Trump? I expect it will be appealed. Ask for the en banc, like Sullivan did. Then the Supreme Court if necessary.

At Newsweek, Congresscritters Jim Jordan and Doug Collins are Looking Back at the Democrats' Failed Partisan Impeachment. I think you can figure they weren't fans.

Sundance looks at the big picture in The Truth Doesn’t Care About Your Feelings – The Big Ugly…

What some have called “Spygate” is not a frozen moment in time or a set of dates on a calendar with a beginning and an end. Spygate was the originating process to ensure the DC system did not experience the disruption carried by Donald John Trump; but it was only the originating process….

….The process of opposition against Donald Trump is a continuum.

Those who use DC for influence and affluence control the mechanisms within the self-actuating system. This includes both Democrats and Republicans as they both feed from the same trough. In the effort to remove Donald Trump, both wings of the uniparty bird were aligned with an identical purpose; Democrats carrying out their effort openly, and the republican elements operating covertly as to retain the DC premise.

Specifically, one of the common flaws that many make is thinking the Mueller special counsel was an outcome of an action by President Trump when he fired former FBI Director James Comey. This is false. The special counsel process was a continuum in the effort to remove the threat that Donald Trump represented back in the early primary days of 2016. The system, writ large, was aligned with this purpose. . . .

WaFreeBee, For Biden Family, a History of Tax Problems  Da Wire reports Hunter Biden Hit With $450K Tax Lien, Is Resolved Despite ‘No Discernible Income,’ Biden Campaign Silent: Report

“Harvey Bezozi, a tax expert who specializes in large-scale tax debt negotiations, said the only way to get a lien released is to pay the settlement in full—often through a payment plan, penalty abatement, or other compromise with the government—or to prove the lien was filed in error,” the report added. “He said liens can take months or years to resolve.”

Bezozi said that for the issue to be resolved in just six days indicates that there “had to be some kind of expeditious kind of process for this.” Bezozi also told the Free Beacon that the government rarely files a lien in error.

“The Biden campaign did not respond to questions about how Hunter Biden settled the debt in less than a week and whether he has found gainful employment,” the report added. “The Biden family has been hit with several tax liens over the past few decades.”

Now, in your mind, replace Hunter with Donald Trump Jr, and imagine the spectacle.

Russiagate at Random

A bit of an odd day. Lots of strands of the original "Spygate" along with more recent events. Wilson Miller at Da Fed wonders Did Obama’s DOJ Leak Michael Flynn’s Russia Phone Call To Set Him Up? Almost certainly. From CNS News, Sen. Graham: ‘Impossible to Believe’ Comey and McCabe Weren’t Told When Carter Page Case Fell Apart. Ordinarily, given a choice between incompetence and malice, I assume incompetence, but in this case malice seems more likely. Chris Farrell at Da Caller warns It Ain’t Over For Andy McCabe. We'll see, but I hope not. Stephen McIntyre has an interesting thread at Climate Audit, starting with Here's a little discussed excerpt from Horowitz Report. After blowup between NYFO and Carter Page on Mar 2, 2016, NYFO contacted FBIHQ Counterespionage Section (in Counterintelligence Division) about opening investigation on Page. Received approval email from Section on April 1. Kinda heavy.

As Declassified FBI memos undercut Mueller team claims that Papadopoulos hindered Russia probe (Just The News), at AmGreat Nice Deb reports that Nunes says House Republicans Are Mulling Criminal Referrals Against Mueller Prosecutors. It looks like they lied to the court in the sentencing plea. Even Mueller prosecutors aren't supposed to lie to the court.

Byron at WaEx asks Is the intelligence community planning to meddle in the 2020 election?. Why not, they got away with it last time, at least mostly and we've already seen it start over, see below. Sundance at CTH is disgusted that Short Term Stupid – Bill Barr Wants Clean FISA Reauthorization Because He Will Not Abuse It… Democrats will have no desire to reform FISA until it's wielded against them.

Breitbart Report – Officials Deny Russia Meddling to Support Trump: ‘The Intelligence Doesn’t Say That’. Ya, we know. So Matt Margolis at PJ Media has Trump Destroying CNN and Jim Acosta After Stupid Question About Russian Interference

Watch: CNN’s Jim @Acosta and President @realDonaldTrump just had quite a clash over Russia pic.twitter.com/eNyzavWuzi

— TV News HQ (@TVNewsHQ) February 25, 2020

Not really Russiagate, but a reminder of how small and incestuous Washington D.C. really is at the top, Odd Coincidence – Rogue CDC Official Pushing Coronavirus Panic Button is Rod Rosenstein’s Sister…

Earlier today Dr. Nancy Messonnier, an official in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), held a conference call with media and pushed a panic narrative around the Coronvirus that ran counter to the Trump administration.
What makes the statements by Dr. Messonnier even more interesting is the fact she is the only sister of former DOJ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Dr. Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (link) told reporters on the call:

“We are asking the American public to work with us to prepare for the expectation that this could be bad.” … “I understand this whole situation may seem overwhelming and that disruption to everyday life may be severe. But these are things that people need to start thinking about now.” (link)

The alarming message from Dr. Messonnier was quickly picked up by most major news organizations and pushed into all reporting on the issue. The tone of the alarm is also counter to the message of the Trump administration and HHS Secretary Alex Azar, as outlined in a press conference with leadership from U.S. Health and Human Services.

Sundance sees a conspiracy.

There is a strong argument to be made that various resistance government officials like Dr. Messonnier, in alignment with democrat resistance politicians, are attempting to weaponize fear and talking-points about the coronavirus in order to inflict maximum damage upon the Trump administration; regardless of both psychological and actual economic impact to the public.

News Thud (which always seems to be Paul Goldberg), Judge Amy Berman Jackson won’t bow out of Roger Stone case. Ace, #Resistance Hanging Judge Declares Roger Stone Jury Forewoman Didn't "Technically" Lie; Declares That Calling Trump's Supporters "Racist" Does Not Show Bias; Reads Stone's Complaint in Mocking Tone "She's making it extremely easy for Trump to pardon Roger Stone. Updates below. . . ." Spencer S. Hsu and Matt Zapotosky at WaPoo whine that Trump calls Stone juror ‘totally biased’ while prosecutors, defense attorneys are debating new trial. So? They aren't supposed to be on line while in court.

In related news, via the Wombat's In The Mailbox: 02.25.2020 the Volokh Conspiracy says after all the sturm und drang, the Federal Judges Association Tells Members Meeting Wasn’t Called To Discuss Trump Intervention In Stone Sentencing after all. Maybe.

The Wall Street Journal received the same email, and offered this comment:

So what happened? It could be that FJA and the press got their wires crossed, or that reporters inflated the significance of what they heard. Or it could be that at least some officers did plan some sort of political detour in the meeting and the organization is now backtracking in embarrassment. Either way, the story created perceptions of a politicized judiciary, and the FJA could help itself and the judiciary by setting the record straight.

I agree.

From the Guardian, Trump lashes out at liberal supreme court justices and demands recusals and from WaPoo, Trump dials up his unusual battle with the judiciary. Only conservative judges are meant to be criticized!

Also via the Wombat, Da Tech Guy: I Oppose Trump’s Commutation Of Blagojevich’s Sentence. I don't.

Am Con reports, DOJ Drooling Over Likely Assange Extradition. It would be interesting to hear from him.

Russiagate Rally

Whew, boy, did the stuff ever build up while I was out fishing! OK, let's start with what I now categorize as "Russiagate" proper, the original conspiracy to block Trump's election and subsequently to take out President Trump using the hoked up charge of collusion with the Ruskies. First, we go to The Last Tradition, who posts Judical Watch's latest findings, Judicial Watch Obtains Records Showing Contact Between Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr That DOJ Claimed It Couldn't Find

And Michael Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell files a reply to DOJ's attempt to pooh pooh her recent filing regarding how Flynn was railroaded with invented crimes. Adam Mill at AmGreat, New Filing in Flynn Prosecution Casts Further Doubt on the Government’s Case. Much more, as usual by sundance at CTH, Reconstructing Justice – Flynn Defense Submits Outstanding Sur-Surreply to Counter Prosecution….

Flynn’s defense calls out the ridiculous. The prosecution argues it had no obligation to tell the target about any material favorable to the defense while the prosecution was piling-on pressure to generate a plea agreement. Then, once the plea was coerced, the prosecution claims they have no obligation to provide Brady material because the target signed a plea.

Apparently, according to DOJ,there was a nanosecond between the govt charging Flynn, and his guilty plea during which his previous defense was entitled to file for any exonerating material.Also from sundance,  Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested – And Why UK Officials Obliged…

The predicate for Robert Mueller’s investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.

The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.

Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.

Margot Cleveland at Da Fed, SCOOP: CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears

The Federalist has learned that the now-outed CIA and FBI informant Stefan Halper served as a source for Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, providing more evidence that the intelligence community has co-opted the press to push anti-Trump conspiracy theories. In addition, an email recently obtained by The Federalist from the MI5-connected Christopher Andrew bragging that his long-time friend Ignatius has the “‘inside track’ on Flynn” adds further confirmation of this conclusion.

Svetlana Lokhova, the Russian-born English citizen and Soviet-era scholar, told The Federalist that she only realized the significance of her communications with and about Ignatius following the filing of attorney Sidney Powell’s reply brief in the Michael Flynn case.

Jim Geraghty at NR gives John Durham glowing reviews in The Last Trusted Prosecutor in Washington, and a book review from AmThink, Lee Smith's Book Will Make Patriots' Blood Boil. At NyPo, Maria Butina blames ‘racism against Russians’ for her legal problems. I think she got a bad deal, but that's not why.

Onto the various misnamed "whistleblowers". From Nice Deb at AmGreat, Retired Army Officer Remembers Lt. Col. Vindman as Partisan Democrat Who Ridiculed America, Ace, Officer Who Served with Vindman Says Vindman Is a Partisan Globalist Democrat Who Would Casually Ridicule Americans as "Rednecks" to His Russian Counterparts. But guess which officer the MSM will choose to honor, and which to ridicule?

In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman said that he “verbally reprimanded” Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for himself. “Do not let the uniform fool you,” Hickman wrote. “He is a political activist in uniform.”

Hickman’s former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has since gone on the record to corroborate his story. Hickman, 52, says he’s a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.

The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers “uncomfortable.” For example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans “rednecks”—a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a big laugh at America’s expense.

Via Town Hall, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy Has These Questions For Shifty Schiff About The Ukrainian Whistleblower. How much did you coordinate with Adam Schiff and his staff? Referring, of course, to the original, still nominally anonymous whistleblower, widely believed to be CIA "analyst" Eric Ciaramella. Gateway Pundit claims knowledge of Why Corrupt FBI Actors Strzok and Page Referred to Schiff’s Suspected ‘Whistleblower’ Eric Ciaramella as ‘Charlie’. Has he been in the conspiracy from the beginning? Looks like it. From Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Whistleblower Is Willing To Submit Written Answers To House Republicans, Lawyer Says. That's mighty white of him. Althouse, "Well, I’ll tell you what. There have been stories written about a certain individual, a male, and they say he’s the whistleblower."

"If he’s the whistleblower, he has no credibility because he’s a Brennan guy, he’s a Susan Rice guy, he’s an Obama guy. And he hates Trump. And he’s a radical. Now, maybe it’s not him. But if it’s him, you guys ought to release the information."

I'm beginning to think Adam Schiff was duped by Brennan loyalist Eric Ciaramella. He was promised a quid pro quo--then Trump released the transcript. They got nothing. Now Schiff is left holding the bag on the dumbest hoax since Jussie Smollett mugged himself w a Subway Sandwich.

— thebradfordfile™ (@thebradfordfile) November 4, 2019

And switching gears to an even earlier whistle blower, Chuck Ross reports DOJ Requests Information That Could Identify Trump Official Behind ‘Anonymous’ Op-Ed, and Roger L Simon (PJ Media) thinks The Cowardly 'Whistleblower' and 'Anonymous' Must Go Public.

And how could we go a day without more goodies from Joe Biden and Ukraine? A big one as John Solomon reports Hunter Biden’s Ukraine gas firm pressed Obama administration to end corruption allegations, memos show, and then, of course, Hunter's dad threatened to withhold billions in aid to Ukraine. Just a coinkydink, I'm sure. Sundance is all over it with Biden Lied – Emails Show Burisma Executives Leveraging Hunter Biden Membership as Pressure on U.S. State Dept. For Assistance in Removing Ukraine Corruption Probe…. Althouse goes to Scott Adams, "How would it be possible for a Ukraine investigation into Biden to be good for Trump politically unless it was also the kind of thing that voters in the United States would care about?"

"There were two potential outcomes of the requested Ukraine investigation on Biden. Either they would find nothing, or they would find behavior that voters in the United States need to know. Which of those two outcomes is the impeachable one?"

The WaPoo continues to whine about the treatment of their deep state allies in Former ambassador testifies she felt threatened by Trump’s comments about her, while sundance counters The Bloom is Off The Ruse – Marie Yovanovitch Transcript a Case Study in Narrative Construction…. More from sundance, Ukraine, Kerry and Quid-Pro-Joe: Steve Hilton -vs- Marie Harf



Chuck Ross, Da Caller, Giuliani Associate Will Cooperate With Democrats’ Impeachment Inquiry, and through Hot Air, NYT whines that Republicans Try New Response To Ukraine Call: Quid Pro Quo Isn’t Impeachable. Assuming the worst, that Trump thought Biden was guilty of corruption in Ukraine, and demanded an investigation as a price for aid (not in evidence yet), is this worse than Obama seeking to damage and oust Trump using the CIA, FBI, DoJ and State Dept?

A bunch of unsorted impeachment follies:

Poll: 59% Say Trump's Interactions with Ukraine Neither Illegal Nor Wrong

Schiff's Impeachment Train to Nowhere

Doing the Impeachment Math – American Greatness

Levin on House Democrats' impeachment effort: 'This entire thing is a sham' - Conservative Review

Nancy Pelosi’s Impeachment Banana Republic – American Greatness

Fox News Polls Show 49% Of Americans Want Impeachment, Democrats Beating Trump In General Election | The Daily Caller

Impeachment, Nunc Pro Tunc | The American Spectator

Donald Trump Versus ‘The Interagency Consensus’

The Military-Intelligence Complex – American Greatness

Chuck Todd: We asked voters about impeachment ... because we had to

Weaponizing Impeachment against Political Opponents

Sunday Talks: Jim Jordan -vs- Maria Bartiromo… | The Last Refuge

Trump's True Crime: He Made People Laugh at Congress | RealClearPolitics

Short: Democrats Doing Everything to Hand House Back to GOP in 2020

Impeachment Drama Is Fraught with Traps for Sane Observers – American Greatness

Russiagate, For Your Eyes Only

Only two issues in today's collection. First, Ambassador Douche Darroch. I didn't think much of when it was revealed he called Trump some bad words. I'm sure ambassadors talk shit about the people they are sent to cover, as well as their own countrymen all the time. People do that. I assumed that it was just part of the upcoming takeover of the Brits by the Brexit crowd, leaking to get him fired, and it worked. But now, Sara Carter reveals that the British Ambassador Who Resigned Vouched For Christopher Steele as ‘Absolutely Legit’

Kim Darroch reportedly told a U.S. official that Christopher Steele, the author of the discredited anti-Trump dossier that the FBI used to justify secretly monitoring members of the Trump team, was “absolutely legit.” Steele, in producing the dossier and several of its false or unsubstantiated claims, was funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee.

The leaked diplomatic documents were published by the The Mail on Sunday, days after the paper published several anti-Trump messages Darroch sent to Downing Street from 2017 to present.

And from Tom Rogan, WaEx,  Ousted UK ambassador leaked US intelligence

According to one current and one former U.S. government official speaking on the condition of anonymity, Darroch repeatedly leaked classified U.S. intelligence information, including highly classified information, to a journalist for a U.S.-based media outlet. The sources are consolidated by the reaction my related inquiries have received from other government officials.

These leaks are unrelated to the diplomatic cables which sparked Trump's anger and Darroch's departure.

Still, one source says that the U.S. government was so alarmed by Darroch's leaks that it launched an official investigation to find the source of the information. That source described the leaked intelligence as “very sensitive,” and suggested that exigent U.S. security concerns motivated the investigation. That source says that non-U.S. government derived records showed the ambassador and journalist exchanging messages on a continuing basis. The source emphasized that these communications were not derived from U.S. government actions.

A second source, a career government official, described the leaks as "unprecedented."

Ace comments, I'd like to pass along an invitation to the Saudi embassy in Turkey. I hear the meat plate is stunning.

There's good evidence that people in the British government were playing along with the Brennan/Clapper/Comey axis in trying to rig the election against Trump. I think we have just identified one of them. Maybe Boris Johnson will extradite him to Gitmo for some "special" questioning.

And from Sundance at CTH, Lawsuit Claims Julian Assange Confirmed DNC Emails Received From Seth Rich – Not a Russian Hack…

A rather stunning report from Gateway Pundit outlines information contained within a lawsuit filing. The lawsuit, filed by Businessman Ed Butowsky, alleges Wikileaks founder Julian Assange confirmed to Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner that the DNC leaked emails were received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron.

The details contained within the lawsuit filing (full pdf below) are stunning.

If this information is true and accurate, the DOJ claim of a Russian hack –based on assertions by DNC contractor, Crowdstrike– would be entirely false. Additionally the DC murder of Seth Rich would hold a far more alarming motive.

Here’s the Full Court Filing:

Robbin Young with Roger Moore in "For Your Eyes Only"

In even more colorful prose, 100%FedUp writes, BREAKING WIKILEAKS BOMBSHELL! Murdered DNC Staffer Seth Rich Was DNC LEAKER: “He Was My Whistleblower”

Wikileaks just confirmed murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the DNC leak.

Wikileaks released a series direct messages from US alleged “Russian spy” Guccifer 2.0 to actress model Robbin Young (NSFW link) (according to Young).

In the stream of texts the discussion leads to the DNC leaker.

His name is “Seth”…

** In November Julian Assange said Russia did not hack into the DNC servers. -h/t GP
Here’s the proof:

The fact that it's cited in a law suit doesn't make it true. But it does suggest the evidence is strong enough not to be too embarrassing to the lawyer submitting it.

Direct Messages from U.S. alleged Russian spy @GUCCIFER_2 to actress-model @robbin_young (according to the latter) https://t.co/uMsB9WgxRQ

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 8, 2017

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Kathy Zhu and FMJRA 2.0: Floating up and running on time and within budget.

Russiagate: Mueller in the Hot Seat?

Just broke on Drudge last night from the Peacock, Robert Mueller to testify publicly before House committees on July 17

Former special counsel Robert Mueller has agreed to testify in public about his two-year Russia investigation at a hearing before the House Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee on July 17. The announcement came from the chairmen of the two panels, who issued a subpoena compelling his testimony.

In a news release issued late Tuesday, Judiciary Committee Chairmen Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said that Mueller had agreed to testify next month.

“Pursuant to subpoenas issued by the House Judiciary and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence tonight, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has agreed to testify before both Committees on July 17 in open session,” the chairmen said in a statement.

 I have a lot of questions for Mueller myself. But here's a good place to start, 25 Questions for Robert Mueller. It will, of course, be circus, with Democrats asking questions leading towards evidence of non-existent Russian collusion, and Republicans, to the extent that the committee chairmen allow them to question him, trying to dig into the bizarre matters of "spygate." Politico notes, Mueller’s team may think it is done. Democrats have other ideas.

It’s the latest twist for the special counsel’s attorneys who spent nearly two years working on one of the most scrutinized investigations in American history and now are resurfacing at major law firms touting their work on the Russia probe. Some are even giving interviews to journalists, a big change from the “no comment” mantra they practiced to almost comical extremes, while another has a reported book deal.

Democrats struggling to find witnesses to guide their probes of Donald Trump say they’ve noticed the recent uptick in activity — and they want in.

These are, after all, the same attorneys who personally interviewed the president’s aides and a wide cast of characters connected to Moscow’s election interference campaign. They worked closest with the special counsel in deciding who merited prosecution or even a mention in his final report. As a result, they could offer new investigative leads, suggest ways to stymie the foreign assistance Trump seems open to accepting and further the congressional probes fueling impeachment calls. In short, they could do what Mueller himself has yet to do, although the special counsel did agree late Tuesday to testify on July 17.

I imagine if the House hearings are the circus I expect, Senate leaders may demand an equal opportunity. Meanwhile, Sundance at CTH is still on the case of Michael Flynn's persecution, prosectution, guilty plea, and still a yet undone sentencing with three different posts. DOJ Confirms Flynn Defense Team Never Received Transcript of Flynn/Kislyak Phone Call…

During a court appearance today by new attorney Mrs. Sidney Powell, the topic of needing a classified security clearance -to review documents- was raised.  The DOJ responded to the assertion by saying no classified information was provided to the prior Flynn defense team, therefore Ms. Powell doesn’t need not carry that concern.

However, by admitting the DOJ provided no classified information to the defense, the prosecution is simultaneously admitting they never provided Flynn with a copy of the phone call transcript (December 29, 2016) between President-elect Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.  The content of that phone call lies at the heart of the FBI interview that took place on January 24th, 2017.

Judge Emmet Sullivan originally asked for the Flynn/Kislyak transcript; however, the prosecution said it was irrelevant to their case.  The judge accepted the non-production.

Wow, the main piece of evidence in the case that Flynn lied to the FBI the contents of his talk with Kislyak, the transcript (which was leaked to the press by someone, presumably at the FBI or DOJ), was deemed by the prosecution to be irrelevant to the case? Why, because they have a carefully crafted 302 from Peter Strzok and Andrew McCabe that swears he lied? Michael Flynn Was Not “Unmasked” – Evidence Flynn Was Under Active, FISC Authorized, Surveillance…. The collection of his call with Kislyak was not "incidental", Flynn was under active surveillance from far earlier, using the excuse of his "Russian contacts", but in fact, because of his opposition to Obama policies. Transcript of Michael Flynn Status Hearing – June 24th (full pdf)

One of the reasons why the Flynn legal situation is so interesting is not really because of Flynn himself; but rather because the Flynn situation is a likely example of President Obama’s surveillance network in operation.

Tenuous legal theories (Logan Act) and obscure laws (technical FARA violations) appear to have been exploited by DOJ administration officials, in close ideological alignment with the Lawfare Group. In association with overall Obama administration officials, the fellow travelers used the legal system to create a DC surveillance network.

At the 30,000 ft. level Obama’s surveillance network looks like this:

• White House identifies a target; •passes request to the DOJ National Security Division (middlemen); •who then use the auspices of possible FARA violations to pass the instructions to the FBI contractors; •who data-mine the NSA database.
•The FBI results are then passed back to the DOJ-NSD; •who weaponize the information for FISA applications (becomes legal cover); and •pass the authorized surveillance (spying) results back to the White House etc.

It’s a circle of surveillance activity that could encompass almost every politician in Washington DC as they network with foreign lobbyists and special interests.

 Sebastian Gorka at AmGreat, What Hillary and Obama Actually Did

Just imagine if Norway were running a double-agent in the Kremlin who could prove that Bernie Sanders was recruited as an asset by the KGB when he and his wife honeymooned in the Soviet Union in 1988 and that he had been given the mission to run for president, implement socialism in America and so weaken us in our geopolitical contest with Russia. Not only should the president be open to the receipt of such information, it would his sworn duty to do so and to act upon the information given his primary responsibility to protect our nation from all enemies “foreign and domestic.”

Yet the media has proceeded hysterically to misrepresent the president’s words, saying his willingness to be open to such information provided by an ally such as Norway is the same as being open to “opposition research” proffered by adversaries such as China or Russia. He said no such thing. He never once indicated his willingness to work with our enemies in a way that could affect a U.S. election.

This is in contrast with Hillary Clinton, who actually conspired with foreign agents and the government of Russia to do exactly that.

According to the handful of true investigative journalists and actual experts, we have only uncovered a fraction of the truth pertaining to what Dan Bongino has called “SpyGate” and Gregg Jarrett has dubbed “the Russian Hoax.” But given the massive amounts of misinformation swirling around the internet and the egregious and willful negligence by the “mainstream” media in reporting the truth about just how deeply foreign actors were allowed to penetrate and influence the last presidential election, it is crucial to catalog what we already know for sure about Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s collusion with actors inimical to our Republic and our values as Americans.

 Jeff Carlson at ET, Tracing the Origins of Congressional Democrats’ ‘Obstruction’ Strategy

Less than six months after Mueller’s appointment—on Oct. 10, 2017—the Brookings Institution published the first of two reports titled “Presidential Obstruction of Justice: The Case of Donald J. Trump,” which outlined, among other things, a scenario whereby Mueller would refer his obstruction findings to Congress, which would then take up the matter and continue investigating. The report also discussed ways in which Congress could impeach the president, mentioning the word “impeachment” a total of 90 times.

Norman Eisen and Barry Berke, two of the authors of the Brookings report, were later retained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) on a consulting basis as special oversight counsels to the Democrat majority staff.

As Nadler noted in an announcement, the two men would have a particular focus on reviewing Mueller’s investigation and would be advising the committee. It also appears Nadler intended for the two lawyers to question Attorney General William Barr.
. . .
Wittes was also the author of an article in October 2016 that discussed the need for an “insurance policy,” which, according to Wittes, was a “cross-ideological network of lawyers and philanthropists” dedicated to fighting Trump in court, should he win the election. Wittes was very forthright in his feelings, noting:

“If Trump wins it, the Coalition of All Democratic Forces needs to be prepared to see him in court,” Wittes wrote.

So, it was the insurance policy from the beginning. CR, The framers never intended for impeachment to be a political weapon, former federal judge tells Levin

Earlier this year, House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., publicly said that impeachment was a “political act” and rested upon the “will of the American people” while explaining the supposed justification for impeachment proceedings against the president.

In contrast to these ideas, Levin asked the constitutional scholar about how this view played out during the Constitutional convention, specifically bringing up a dispute between James Madison and George Mason over whether or not impeachment should happen over charges of “maladministration” — i.e., doing a bad job.

“George Mason proposed that the president be impeachable for ‘maladministration’ and Madison objected to that, saying that that would effectively make him serve at the pleasure of the Senate — meaning that they could get rid of him whenever they wanted to and that would destroy his independence,” McConnell explained. “It’s pretty clear that Madison, at least, believed that the president needed to be insulated from impeachment for anything that isn’t really truly a high crime or misdemeanor.”

Fox, Hans von Spakovsky: Sorry, media -- talking to foreigners does not violate federal campaign laws

Here’s the bottom line: a federal candidate who is freely given information is not receiving a “contribution” or “thing of value” and is thus not violating federal campaign finance law or the regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). I know. I served as an FEC Commissioner.

If getting dirt on an opponent were a “thing of value,” then any adverse information concerning a candidate—even informed criticism of a rival’s policy proposals—would also have to be considered a “thing of value,” and both would have to listed as a financial “contribution” to a campaign. Such a broad interpretation of the law would be potentially unconstitutional and impractical to administer or enforce. Moreover, it is not a position that has been taken by the FEC.

Federal law (52 U.S.C. §30121) prohibits a foreign national from contributing or donating money or a “thing of value” to a federal, state, or local candidate or political committee. Foreigners are also banned from engaging in independent political expenditures. That means that the Chinese government, for example, can’t give money directly to a candidate, nor can it buy an ad in the New York Times telling Americans they should vote for or against a particular candidate.

This ban doesn’t prevent foreign nationals from volunteering to help a campaign, as long as the foreigner does not “dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process” of the campaign under a regulation issued by the FEC (11 CFR §110.20). The federal statute also says that the term “contribution” does not include an “individual who volunteers to behalf of a candidate.” The FEC specifically notes that a foreign national “may volunteer personal services to a federal candidate or federal political committee without making a contribution.”

According to prior FEC enforcement actions and advisory opinions, this means that a foreign national can, for instance, develop intellectual property such as a website, logos, and trademarks for a campaign as a volunteer (Advisory Opinion 2014-20, Make Your Laws PAC). Under the FEC’s reasoning, a foreigner who volunteers could also do research and share the results with the campaign.

Furthermore, foreign volunteers can speak at campaign events and even solicit contributions for a federal candidate as long as they solicit only Americans and not other foreigners (Advisory Opinion 2004-26, Weller). Why, a talented foreign musician can even contribute an uncompensated performance at a candidate’s fundraiser (Matter Under Review 5987)—as Elton John did at a Radio City Music Hall concert that raised $2.5 million for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

A foreign national who simply volunteers to provide information to a campaign would certainly seem to fall within this regulatory exemption.

However, the FEC says that this exemption for a foreign volunteer applies only “as long as the individual performing the service is not compensated by anyone.” Makes you wonder why the FEC hasn’t investigated a certain presidential campaign in 2016 that allegedly paid a former British intelligence agent (i.e., a foreigner) to do political opposition research, doesn’t it?

Julie Kelly at AmGreat, The Steele Dossier Has Been Discredited—Is the IC Report Next?

A special prosecutor appointed by Barr to oversee the probe is supposed to interview senior CIA officials who helped produce the report. According to a June 12 New York Times story disclosing the inquiry, the impending inquiry “has provoked anxiety in the ranks of the CIA.”

It should.

The ICA is an embarrassment to U.S. intelligence services, an obvious piece of government-sanctioned propaganda that would make Putin green with envy. Two of Obama’s henchmen—Comey and former CIA director John Brennan—signed off on the report then briefed both the former and the incoming president on its contents in early January 2017. (In his briefing with Trump, Comey also added a two-page summary of the Steele dossier, including the ludicrous claims about Trump’s alleged dalliances with prostitutes in Moscow.)

Reeling from Trump’s shocking win and desperate to place blame, Obama in early December 2016 ordered a full review of Russia’s election meddling. Twenty days later, the review was completed—hardly sufficient time for an adequate investigation of how a global adversary infiltrated a U.S. presidential election that cost more than $2 billion and involved 130 million American voters.

Nonetheless, in less than three weeks, the agencies claimed to have collected and verified reports from “multiple sources” to affirm their findings.

“To my mind the assessment is very peculiar,” former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy told the House Intelligence Committee earlier this month. “Ordinarily the kind of assessment that you’re talking about there would be something that would take well over a year to do, certainly many months to do . . . seems to me, in this instance, there was a rush to get that out within a matter of days.”

The hastily prepared report is akin to a last-minute term paper, carefully formatted with plenty of white space and graphics. Odd anecdotes are stitched together in a hodgepodge manner. It’s filled with repetition and hearsay. One vague passage insists that Putin “holds a grudge for comments [by Clinton] he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.” Another factoid is that a Putin pal said Russia would “drink champagne” if Trump won. Not exactly the kind of conjecture that would pass muster in a court of law.

The document was released in declassified form; readers repeatedly are assured that highly-classified information supports the Intelligence Community’s conclusions but that “the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.” (Where have we heard that before?) It strained to make a connection between the Kremlin, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.