Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe penned an op-ed for The Washington Post to contest the allegation of his “lack of candor” with federal investigators. I have been writing (here and here and here) on the contrast between the treatment of McCabe and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. McCabe has been erroneously portrayed as “losing his pension” but has not been charged. Flynn was charged and accepted a plea deal under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making a false statement to investigators. Now McCabe is raising virtually the same defense that did not work for Flynn: that there was a lot going on and he was “confused and distracted.”
Given his willingness to hold forth publicly on his actions, McCabe does not appear to expect to be charged even though the Inspector General could refer a criminal allegation to prosecutors.
He lashes about at President Donald Trump and critics to assert ‘I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators.” He then added this familiar defense: “At worst, I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted — and for that I take full responsibility.”
That is reportedly the same defense raised by Flynn who admitted to meeting with Russian diplomats during the busy transition period but did not disclose or confirm that they spoke about sanctions. He reportedly also did not make such a disclosure to Vice President Pence. There was nothing unlawful in the meeting with the Russians or even unprecedented for an incoming national security adviser to discuss such points of tension between the countries. Flynn did not seek legal assistance before the interview and was reportedly not told that the investigators were there as part of a possible criminal inquiry.
Once again, it is not a sufficient argument to note that Flynn was facing other charges. Prosecutors are under a sworn duty to apply laws faithfully and fairly. They are not allowed to simply charge any crime that is convenient. They must be able to attest to applying the criminal code in a consistent fashion. Prosecutors are ethically bound to reject criminal charges (even when they can be technically brought) where they reflect “unwarranted disparate treatment of similarly situated persons.”
We do not know how strong the other alleged crimes were against Flynn. We have one crime that the prosecutors maintained was established on the facts in the indictment. Those facts are strikingly similar on that crime to McCabe. Of course, we are still awaiting the release of the IG report but McCabe’s misconduct was sufficient to not only lead career FBI staff to call for his termination but FBI Director Andrew Wray reportedly immediately forced him into a terminal leave upon reading the summary.
I have admittedly been a longtime critic of the use of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and how it has been used by prosecutors to indict for any statement deemed misleading or false. However, the greatest danger is posed not in the broad scope of this law but its arbitrary enforcement. Two officials are accused of misleading statements in interviews. One is bled financially to the point that he must sell his house and then forced into a criminal plea. The other gets a delay in his pension. Both were very very busy people, but only one is looking at prison.
http://thebullelephant.com/mcauliffe-strong-armed-nomination-of-senior-fbi-officials-wife-for-va-senate-run/
“Here’s the relevant timeline:
Late 2014/Early 2015: In response to State Department requests, Hillary Clinton’s staff reviewed thousands of emails to determine which ones should be turned over as official correspondence. They produced 55,000 pages of emails. Needless to say, Team Clinton has become aware at this time of a vulnerability surrounding these emails.
March 2, 2015: News breaks publicly that Hillary Clinton used a personal server for emails while serving as Secretary of State.
March 7, 2015: Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, one of Clinton’s closest friends and political allies, meets with both Jill and Andrew McCabe to recruit Jill to run for the Virginia Senate against incumbent Sen. Dick Black (R-Loudoun). Dr. McCabe had no previous record in politics, hadn’t been active locally, hadn’t made any donations to Democrats, and in fact reportedly chose to vote in the 2012 Republican primary. She was, quite literally, an unknown in Democratic political circles in her district.
March 9, 2015: A prominent attorney and retired Army Colonel, Tom Mulrine, had been recruited to run for the Democratic nomination for the 13th District Senate seat by local Democrats. Mulrine, who is not married to a senior FBI official, was then convinced to step aside and clear the way for McCabe’s nomination.”
——————————————-
“What has been publicly confirmed is that 98% of the McAuliffe-directed funds that went to Jill McCabe came after the FBI initiated its emails investigation, and after Andrew McCabe became the number three guy (and quite possibly the heir apparent to the number two slot).
So much for this just being “silly season.” The Clinton team, which at the time included McAuliffe, DPVA, and Common Good VA as integral pieces, very much knew about the brewing email troubles when they courted the political neophyte who happened to be married to a very senior rising star inside the FBI, and were painfully aware of it before they invested well over half a million dollars in that neophyte’s long shot campaign. Moreover, there was a completely separate Clinton scandal brewing at the time, that we now know has been under investigation by the FBI, that involved the Clinton Foundation. This latter scandal may also involve Governor McAuliffe himself.
This doesn’t prove that McAuliffe was consciously investing in a relationship with Andrew McCabe. But it does show that McAuliffe would have been aware throughout this period that having a friend at the FBI might come in handy in the not too distant future.”
What I wonder about is the judgment of Andrew McCabe. All of DC knows that McAuliffe is a Clinton fixer and crooked as the day is long. Yet McCabe still sits down with McAuliffe who is personally recruiting his wife, out of the blue, to run for a Virginia senate seat? McCabe’s first instinct wasn’t to immediately distance himself and his wife (a medical doctor) from the McAuliffe/Clinton political machine? Isn’t that peculiarly bad judgment on his part given his high-ranking position at the FBI?
It gets worse.
Hillary offered him the FBI Director position as a Presidential Candidate, thinking (shocking!) she would win the election. So now the IG is investigating McCabe’s history with Hillary’s promise to be FBI Director
“DOJ: Inspector General Examining Whether McCabe Was Promised Promotion to FBI Director by Hillary Clinton”
“Andrew McCabe may have revealed to his inner circle an inside plan to replace his friend James Comey as FBI director if and when Hillary Clinton was elected president of the United States, according to top officials in the Justice Department.
The Inspector General, who is combing McCabe’s communications while he was deputy director of the FBI during the 2016 presidential election, is looking at many parallel revelations from McCabe’s discussions in emails and text messages, DOJ sources said.
There was at least talk of a FBI promotion, one DOJ source said.”
https://truepundit.com/doj-inspector-general-examining-whether-mccabe-was-promised-promotion-to-fbi-director-by-hillary-clinton/
Yes hmmm….so much to wonder about with McCabe…
And because McCabe foolishly associated himself with the Clinton political machine, via Terry McAuliffe recruiting his wife to run for a senate seat, he needlessly got himself caught up in all kinds of entirely avoidable ethical/recusal questions, Hatch Act violation questions, undue political influence questions, etc. within the FBI — all of which could have and should have been avoided given McCabe’s high-ranking position in the FBI and ties to the Clinton investigations.
If McCabe’s FBI career meant that much to him, then he should have used better judgment and not let himself get sucked into the Clinton corruption machine like he did – even though he thought Madam President was a sure bet. We all know how corrupt the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe are, you should have too, Mr. McCabe. Like, duh, Andy. Truly. Just, duh. You deserve every bit of what has befallen you and whatever else is to come b/c your judgment sucks. Quit yer whinin’ buddy.
I’m not sure how much more intellectually dishonest Turley can get, but he’s sunk pretty deep with this one.
Here’s a clue. Just because you use the same defense as a criminal doesn’t make you guilty. Yet Turley’s entire riff is based on the assumption that McCabe is lying — and IGNORES the evidence that Horowitz went out of his way to separate McCabe from the larger investigation, RUSHED to judgement, then deliberately allowed his work to be MISCHARACTERIZED (as some kind of Clinton inspired deep state nonsense, when McCabe’s supposed “crime” was in support of an article critical of Clinton).
Turley has gone out of his way to praise Horowitz, but never explains why Horowitz went out of his way to tank McCabe. Turley elsewhere has claimed that Horowitz is insulated from politics — AS IF HOROWITZ HASN’T WATCHED PEOPLE LIKE COMEY AND MCCABE BE DESTROYED FOR NOT FOLLOWING TRUMP’S ORDERS.
Paul, please be a sport and post your weblink to your legal analysis of all things related to the US Constitution
Thanks!
xoxo
It might be a good idea to wait for the release of IG Horiwitz’s report before smearing Horowitz by accusing him of smearing McCabe.
Moral relativism is the new normal. DOJ, FBI, Members of Congress, Presidents from Bill Clinton forward, MSM, and Americans who empower them, all have destroyed our once great nation. Roman Catholic Cardinal Tim Dolan of NYC wrote in the WSJ a piece that was stunningly honest and true.
It is Lent. This Sunday is Palm Sunday.
Intervention needed asap
“The Democrats Abandon Catholics”
If you value religious education or life’s sanctity, you’re not welcome in the party.
By Cardinal Timothy Dolan
March 22, 2018 7:29 p.m. ET
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-abandon-catholics-1521761348
“A couple of events over the past few weeks brought to mind two towering people who had a tremendous effect on the Archdiocese of New York and the U.S. more broadly. Their witness is worth remembering, especially in this political moment.
“Last Saturday’s feast of St. Patrick, the patron saint of our cathedral and archdiocese, reminded me of Archbishop John Hughes. As the first archbishop of New York (1842-64), “Dagger John” displayed dramatic reverence for the dignity of Irish immigrants. Thousands arrived daily in New York—penniless, starving and sometimes ill—only to be met with hostility, bigotry and injustice.”
“An immigrant himself, Hughes prophetically and vigorously defended their dignity. Because the schools at the time were hostile to these immigrants, he initiated Catholic schools to provide children with a good education sensitive to their religion and to prepare them as responsible, patriotic citizens. The schools worked. Many remain open to this day, their mission unchanged.
The second event was the recent funeral of a great African-American woman, Dolores Grier. A convert to Catholicism, she was named vice chancellor of the archdiocese three decades ago by Cardinal John O’Connor; she was the first layperson and first woman to hold the prestigious position. Grier was passionate about civil rights, especially the right to life of babies in the womb. She never missed an opportunity to defend, lovingly but forcefully, their right to life.
Grier attributed her pro-life sensitivity to the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who preached that abortion was an act of genocide against minorities. No wonder, she often observed, abortuaries were clustered in poor black and brown neighborhoods. The statistics today confirm her observation: In 2013 there were more black babies aborted in New York City (29,007) than were born here (24,758), according to a report from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.
The values Archbishop Hughes and Dolores Grier cherished—the dignity and sanctity of human life, the importance of Catholic schools, the defense of a baby’s civil rights—were, and still are, widely embraced by Catholics. This often led Catholics to become loyal Democrats. I remember my own grandmother whispering to me, “We Catholics don’t trust those Republicans.”
Such is no longer the case, a cause of sadness to many Catholics, me included. The two causes so vigorously promoted by Hughes and Grier—the needs of poor and middle-class children in Catholic schools, and the right to life of the baby in the womb—largely have been rejected by the party of our youth. An esteemed pro-life Democrat in Illinois, Rep. Dan Lipinski, effectively was blacklisted by his own party. Last year, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez insisted that pro-life candidates have no place in the modern Democratic Party.
It is particularly chilly for us here in the state Hughes and Grier proudly called their earthly home. In recent years, some Democrats in the New York state Assembly repeatedly blocked education tax credit legislation, which would have helped middle-class and low-income families make the choice to select Catholic or other nonpublic schools for their children. Opposing the bill reduces the ability of fine Catholic schools across the state to continue their mission of serving the poor, many of them immigrants.
More sobering, what is already the most radical abortion license in the country may soon be even more morbidly expanded. For instance, under the proposed Reproductive Health Act, doctors would not be required to care for a baby who survives an abortion. The newborn simply would be allowed to die without any legal implications. And abortions would be legal up to the moment of birth.”
“The “big tent” of the Democratic Party now seems a pup tent. Annafi Wahed, a former staffer to Hillary Clinton, recently wrote in this newspaper about her experience attending the Conservative Political Action Conference. She complimented the conservative attendees, pointing out that most made her feel welcome at their meeting. They listened attentively to her views—a courtesy, she had to admit, that would not be given to them at a meeting of political liberals.
I’m a pastor, not a politician, and I’ve certainly had spats and disappointments with politicians from both of America’s leading parties. But it saddens me, and weakens the democracy millions of Americans cherish, when the party that once embraced Catholics now slams the door on us.
To Archbishop Hughes, Dolores Grier, and Grandma Dolan, I’m sorry to have to write this. But not as sad as you are to know it is true.”
Cardinal Dolan is archbishop of New York.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-democrats-abandon-catholics-1521761348
+10
The fastest growing charter schools (contractor schools) are Muslim. Taxpayers don’t want to pay for Catholic, Wiccan, Muslim, Mormon, Scientology, etc. schools. Those taxpayers understand that public education is a unifier in a diverse culture. They know it is not right that their tax dollars go to legacy admission private schools that deny admittance to students.
Growth in congregants has occurred in the protestant faith megachurches, at the expense of both Catholic and traditional denominations like the Methodists. When the megachurches get school tax dollars, they will continue to expand, further reducing and isolating minority religions. If commenter, “This is Leadership”, is granted his/her wish, the privatized future that Betsy DeVos paints will not be good for America.
Linda, you will understand that the Peanut Gallery on this forum thinks youre just bitter and the face of why Americans left the Democrat Party.
Cardinal Dolan is right.
Get thee to a Nunnery. Muslims wont take you as a loud mouth female (you wouldnt be caught dead wearing a Hijab, and David Brock cant pay you to troll since he is now paying his internet trolls with crushed aspirin tabs mixed with talc powder in lieu of crystal meth baggies since the Global Clinton FUNDation is out of supplies.
The Nuns might take you but you really must hurry. Cardinal Dolan’s excellent WSJ piece was great Marketing for every single Catholic parish, school and Catholic religious community of brothers and sisters throughout the NE USA. They will be packed with applicants aspiring to be as holy as them. See below
Hang in there sweetheart.
Vita turpis ne morti quidem honestae colum relinquit
(A life of shame leaves no room even for an honorable death) – Cicero
http://nunnery.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Daughters-of-Charity-bourders-at-the-entrance-of-The-Nunnery-1280×847.png
Wow, Jon Turley’s pretty dense. I have ‘splained the underlying principle about the huge difference between Flynn and McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Mueller, etc. etc., many times. The difference is simple. Flynn is NOT a member of the Deep State, and McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Mueller, etc. ARE Deep State. Deep State members are IMMUNE from prosecution, regardless of the laws and regardless of what crimes they committed.
How difficult is this basic, ironclad principle to understand? Reminds me of the old saying about horticulture. . . . “You can bring a whore to culture but you can’t make her think.”
Ralph, please provide us the link to your legal blog so that we can be informed.
Thanks
I thought it was “but you can’t make her like opera.” ;D
JJ, not bad, but “opera” doesn’t rhyme with “drink.”
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-politicization-of-the-fbi/
“Significantly, Strzok also led the interview of General Michael Flynn that ended in Flynn pleading guilty to making false statements to the FBI. It is important to recall that Flynn’s FBI interview was not conducted under the authority of the special counsel, but under that of Comey and McCabe. It took place during Inauguration week in January 2017. Flynn had met with the same agents the day before regarding security clearances. McCabe called Flynn and asked if agents could come to the White House. Flynn agreed, assuming it was about personnel. It was not.
Flynn had been overheard on a FISA wiretap talking to Russia’s Ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. There was nothing criminal or even unusual about the fact of such discussion. Flynn was on the Trump transition team and was a federal employee as the President-Elect’s national security advisor. It was his job to be talking to foreign leaders. Flynn was not charged with regard to anything said during his conversation with Kislyak. So why was the FBI interrogating Flynn about legal conduct? What more did the FBI need to know? I am told by sources that when Flynn’s indictment was announced, McCabe was on a video conference call—cheering!
Compare the FBI’s treatment of Flynn to its treatment of Paul Combetta, the technician who used a program called BleachBit to destroy thousands of emails on Hillary Clinton’s computer. This destruction of evidence took place after a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives issued letters directing that all emails be preserved and subpoenaing them. Combetta first lied to the FBI, claiming he did not recall deleting anything. After being rewarded with immunity, Combetta recalled destroying the emails—but he could not recall anyone directing him to do so.”
The internal investigation into McCabe began long before Trump came into office. McCabe had a vendetta against Flynn. McCabe retaliated against agents who came forward to complain about agency misconduct –
and these agents are among the many watching the handling of this investigation very carefully.
McCabe was caught conspiring with other bureaucrats in his 7th floor FBI office on how to handle the election if Trump won. As a senior level FBI guy connected to Clinton-related investigations, McCabe and his wife met with Va Gov Terry McAuliffe who personally cleared the way for Jill McCabe to run for the Virginia senate seat and then steered $700k to her losing campaign. McCabe was being investigated for possible Hatch Act violations. There’s much more to the McCabe story and his whiny WaPo piece is especially telling for the questions he does not address at all.
McCabe’s new theme song should be Linda Ronstadt’s, ‘Poor Poor Pitiful Me.’
Poor, poor pitiful me
Poor, poor pitiful me
Oh, these boys won’t let me be
Lord, have mercy on me
Woe, oh woe is me
Professor Turley said that Comey’s leaks were “unauthorized and thus unlawful,…”
James Comey, Andrew McCabe et al. are criminals who have ceased futile legal defenses and launched all-out public relations and damage control campaigns.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “…a dupe which will live in infamy…”, shall appoint a second special counsel or trigger an unpredictable constitutional crisis.
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/vince-foster-murder-cover-up-hillary-clinton-5.jpg
She did it to Vince Foster and McCabe looks a great deal like Vinny
http://www.federaljack.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/vince-foster.jpg
Here’s some relevant information regarding McCabe and Flynn to which attention has been called here previously, but which hasn’t been referred to in the last couple of threads, so perhaps needs to be recalled. (Full disclosure: I did not vote for Trump and am greatly troubled by his impulsivity, his habit of playing fast and loose with facts, and his pronounced authoritarian tendencies, but neither am I a fan of the federal police who gave us Cointelpro and countless other violations of the US Constitution).
McCabe seems to have clearly violated the FBI employment agreement by not seeking written authorization to discuss FBI information with the media: he asserted that he had the oral approval of then-Director James Comey.
“ FD-291 (Rev. 9-15-2015)
“FBI EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
“As consideration for my employment, or my continued employment, with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), United States Department of Justice, I hereby agree to be governed by and to comply with the following provisions:
“1. Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law. I understand that by being granted access to such information, I am accepting a position of special trust and am obligated to protect such information from unauthorized disclosure.
{Snip]
“3. I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.” [Emphasis added]
[Snip]
“7. Violations of this employment agreement may constitute cause for revocation of my security clearance, subject me to criminal sanction, disciplinary action by the FBI, including dismissal, and subject me to personal liability in a civil action at law, [Emphasis added] including but not limited to injunctive relief, the imposition of a constructive trust, and the disgorging of any profits arising from any unauthorized publication or disclosure. In that regard, I hereby irrevocably assign all rights, title, and interests in any such profits to the United States.”
file:///C:/Users/Ken/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/FD-291.pdf
As to Flynn’s guilty plea, according to reporting by Byron York, Comey informed Congressional investigators that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn regarding his conversations with the Russian ambassador did not think Flynn lied to them: [Emphasis added]
“In March 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey briefed a number of Capitol Hill lawmakers on the Trump-Russia investigation. One topic of intense interest was the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump White House national security adviser who resigned under pressure on Feb. 13 after just 24 days in the job.
“There were widespread reports that Flynn had lied to Vice President Mike Pence about telephone conversations that he, Flynn, had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition in late December 2016. On Jan. 24, 2017, two of Comey’s FBI agents went to the White House to question Flynn, and there was a lot of speculation later that Flynn lied in that interview, which would be a serious crime.
” ‘The Jan. 24 interview potentially puts Flynn in legal jeopardy,’ the Washington Post reported in February. ‘Lying to the FBI is a felony offense.’
“There was also a lot of concern in Congress, at least among Republicans, about the leak of the wiretapped Flynn-Kislyak conversation. Such intelligence is classified at the highest level of secrecy, yet someone — Republicans suspected Obama appointees in the Justice Department and intelligence community — revealed it to the press.
“So in March, lawmakers wanted Comey to tell them what was up. And what they heard from the director did not match what they were hearing in the media.
“According to two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview. [Emphasis added]
“Nine months later, with Comey gone and special counsel Robert Mueller in charge of the Trump-Russia investigation, Flynn pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to the FBI in that Jan. 24 questioning. What happened? With Flynn awaiting sentencing — that was recently delayed until at least May — some lawmakers are trying to figure out what occurred between the time Comey told Congress the FBI did not believe Flynn lied and the time, several months later, when Flynn pleaded guilty to just that.
“But to outside observers, mystery still surrounds the case. To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law [the Logan Act] and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution, anyway.
“The Flynn matter is at the very heart of the Trump-Russia affair, and there is still a lot to learn about it.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
The leadership of the intelligence community, including that of the FBI, has made little secret of its antipathy for Trump (and vice versa), and it’s clear to me that we’re witnessing an ongoing struggle between the two political power centers, in which actual violations of the law are of secondary concern.
For an in-depth critique of York’s article, see:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/02/12/byron-york-ponders-the-flynn-puzzle-question/
I have heard repeated suggestions that in similar situations of being charged with lying to Federal investigators, that anyone should be entitled to invoke the Hillary Clinton defense, and be excused for the same reasons that she was excused.
As much as I also despise the attempts by Federal prosecutors to set up their targets with “process” crimes, instead of real crimes related to what they were being investigated for, I also believe that anyone so targeted should be entitled to the same defense used by one of the most serious offenders.
So I will state, in support of Andrew McCabe, that he be entitled to the same defense that Gen. Michael Flynn used. And I will also say that the punishment, if any, should be the same.
This last part will be the most difficult, since Flynn has been forced into destitution. So I propose that he be restored to his financial condition prior to being charged by the Robert Muller task force, with the funds to make him whole being provided personally by Muller and his staff, at no further expense to the Treasury.
That would be reasonable. Of course we could set the bar a bit higher and eliminate the ridiculous Hillary Clinton defense.
“Confused and Distracted” — LOL — I guess that was one of Led Zeppelin’s lesser hits.
Should’a gone with Dazed and Confused:
When a civilian lies to a law enforcement officer, they are usually doing it to save their own neck — a common survival instinct.
When a law enforcement officer or other government official lies to another law enforcement officer, it might also be a common survival instinct, but it’s also much more. It’s an attempt to undermine the entire justice system, sometimes with intent to have an innocent person prosecuted.
If Flynn is looking at a possible 5 years in prison for lying to the FBI, McCabe should be looking at a possible 50 years, because McCabe’s alleged crime should be considered exponentially greater than Flynn’s, not equal to or lesser than.
Your absolutely correct!
Recommended 0-6 mos. “Flynn admitted that senior transition officials directed his contacts with Russian officials late December of last year.” (Timing coincided with a meeting at Mar a Largo)
AKA — Flynn was doing his JOB, and wasn’t violating the law.
The speculation about why he might have lied (although those doing the interview apparently didn’t think Flynn lied) is that he was concerned about violating the Logan Act — which is inapplicable, as explained by Alan Dershowitz:
“Under the principle of desuetude — a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades — it is dead-letter.”
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying
Yet Sally Yates pitched the Logan Act at the White House. This would be grossly unethical, and along with a mountain of other evidence, indicates that it’s criminals that are doing the investigating.
The investigation of Flynn needs to be investigated, as does Mueller’s entire unlawful investigation in search of a crime, when the LAW requires that there first needs to be an identified crime that needs investigating BEFORE a special counsel is appointed:
28 CFR § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.
“The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted ***”
Congress should demand Mueller’s investigation be stayed pending his explanation of where he thinks the law authorizes him to go on a fishing expedition in search of crimes. Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller is NOT relevant compared with the written law.
I agree William. Anyone concerned with the rule of law should.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
March 24th, 2018
(RALEIGH, N.C.) — A prosecutor said the pictures a North Carolina man posted on Facebook of his dead wife and daughter are enough proof to show he is guilty of murder.
When I read this it made think of da Clapper. Or is it just da me?
‘I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators.”
Simple Orwellian logic, some are more equal than others.
hey hey DOJ, release those documents TODAY!
Fitton calls out Sessions, Wray and Rosenstein for withholding material.
“Flynn Defense”? What is he? In like Flynn or out like Flynn. Or just Ausfart.
It’s a felony to lie to law enforcement, even accidentally, even a little bit. Apparently even if it’s one LEO to another. But it’s perfectly fine for LEOs to lie to civilians. This is stupid. Congress made it this way at the insistence of law enforcement. (side note: never talk to law enforcement. There’s no upside). Result: law enforcement has made its own job harder. But it does keep the prison system running at full efficiency, and that’s the important thing, right?
ALEC keeps the prison system running at full force.
“In September of 2015, ALEC and the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL) formed a new partnership to prioritize the prevention of overcriminalization, the reforming of mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the reduction of recidivism rates and the promotion of community-based alternatives to lengthy jail stays for non-violent offenders. ALEC and NBCSL also developed a shared statement of principles on criminal justice that will guide members’ efforts in state outreach and education.”
Linda – you really have drunk the Kool-Aid. Black ministers have more to do with keeping our prisons full than anybody. They are the ones who petitioned for tougher penalties for crack. It was ruining their neighborhoods.
What’s good for me may not be good for you.
Flynn and McCabe are not nearly the same and why Turley keeps equating the two speaks to his political agenda more than equal treatment under the law. Flynn was charged with only one thing because he was a cooperating witness. He also was an unregistered agent for Turkey (maybe no big deal since nobody gets prosecuted for that apparently) and has multiple money laundering charges which could have been brought not including the deal he was trying to broker during the inauguration.
Maybe you legal eagles know whether Flynn can be pardoned for all the things for which he has not been charged or would a pardon be limited to those crimes already on the books?
Why are you looking to the legal eagles for answers when you claim to know so much? If you’re going to claim Flynn and McCabe are not nearly the same, then finish your legal analysis and detail the McCabe side of the ledger. Not doing so speaks to your political agenda more than equal treatment under the law.
If what Flynn did with regard to Turkey was illegal then I would have expected them to charge Flynn with that crime, but they didn’t which likely means no crime existed.
As usual, Enigma dumps all sorts of charges on those he doesn’t favor whether or not true. That was the basis for Enigma calling Trump a racist. According to Enigma Trump’s father, Fred may have been at a rally where NAZI’s and anti-NAZI’s attended. He may have been arrested but if he was the individual arrested he was released without any charges while others were detained. What Fred Trump was doing is totally unknown. He was 21 at the time and that incident occurred almost 90 years before Donald Trump ran for the Presidency. That incident was the primary reason Enigma called Donald Trump a racist so we can see that Enigma’s charges are all trumped up.
I think blanket pardons for any and all crimes against The United States are permitted. It’s up to The POTUS to specify the uses to which a pardon can be put.
Meanwhile, thank you, Enigma, for reminding me of the charges not filed against Flynn. Talk about being confused and distracted. I keep forgetting the obvious. Always good to have you around, Enigma.
P.S. If there is a conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that’s not even a crime and which Trump supposedly did not commit, anyway, then why haven’t “those conspirators” yet charged Trump with any crime at all–not even a crime that actually is a crime, nor even one which Trump may very well have committed?
I’m no legal eagle, either. But does it make much sense to accuse the OSC of misprision of justice just for conducting an investigation and without having yet charged Trump with any crime at all??? It sounds premature to me. It also sounds a tad desperate.
The sweat of desperation amps up with each disclosure, like Cambridge Analytica. “Trumps acts guilty.” (Trey Gowdy).
Dumb (_!_) nunt.
Can’t even quote da people correctly.
Da Trey Howdy said da following:
“If you’re innocent, act it.”
Stop da lying!
“Trump acts guilty.” – Trey Gowdy
“Russian collusion”. – Rod Rosenstien
The sides of the equation cancel each other out.
George where does Trey Gowdy say “Trump acts guilty” in the context meant by the left?
But seriously though, Mueller issues a subpoena for The Trump Organization’s financial records and Trump immediately hires a tin-foil hat conventioneer to accuse Mueller of misprision of justice by way of conspiring to frame Trump for a crime that’s not a crime and that Trump claims he didn’t commit, anyhow. And, oh, btw, Trump really, really, truly, truly would like to be interviewed by Mueller–STAT–before those financial records from The Trump Organization are turned over to the OSC.
Does anybody seriously think that that malarkey is going to deter Mueller from continuing the special counsel’s investigation? Because the IG and the OPR supposedly found a lack of candor in McCabe’s answers to the IG and the OPR’s questions? And that purportedly proves an ongoing conspiracy to frame Trump–who has still not yet been charged with any crime???
Less tin foil, please. That message is not even coming through the tweetwall.
” Always good to have you around, Enigma.”
Really? You trust a person that will call another a racist based on what his father may or may not have done at age 21, almost 90 years earlier? Even for you Diane that is somewhat of a stretch.
Allow me to put it in terms you might understand. Imagine for a moment Flynn was black and was Obama’s incoming National Security Advisor. Would you still ignore McCabe’s actions and focus all of your attention on Flynn and Obama?
I’ll wait.
Very clever Chief. Obama did, in fact, hire Flynn to head The Defense Intelligence Agency (unless I’ve named the wrong agency). Of course, Obama also fired Flynn from that post for something dubbed “Flynn Facts,” which were, as the story goes, a bunch of stuff that Flynn just made up off the top of his head as he was going along. Moreover, Obama duly warned Trump of Flynn’s estrangement from the truth. I suppose that must’ve made Flynn downright irresistible to Trump. OTOH, Trump already knew about Flynn’s pandering out the Hillary child-sex ring out of a pizza parlor conspiracy theory. So I suppose that Obama’s warning to Trump about Flynn’s fibbing may have fallen on deaf ears, anyway. Strike that. And make those smitten ears, instead.
P. S. Why isn’t Flynn black? Didn’t Obama know Flynn was white before Obama fired him?
And I get accused of making everything about race?
If an incoming National Security Advisor of any color was negotiating with an enemy to undermine the current administration and its policies (the sanctions he said not to worry about because they would undo them) that would be a problem. Taking millions from another government while trying to influence and change policy favorably towards them would still be a problem. Yet another deal worth hundreds of millions to build nuclear reactors in the Mideast would be a big deal. So yes, black or not, he would get my focus. BTW, you said “Flynn and Obama” when you meant to say Flynn and Trump.
As for McCabe, I don’t have any specifics as to how or whether he might have misled authorities, maybe there is a problem. But they positively, definitely are not anywhere in the same category.
“And I get accused of making everything about race?”
Enigma, you get accused rightfully so. I think that has been more than adequately proven.
Da colored 👦 boy got caught!
OK – Taking a break from reading “Russia Insider” to check the blog. Surprised to see your post – I thought you were out marching!
That’s CV Brown posing as Original Ken. Moreover, it’s bloody obvious. Try to keep up, Autumn.
CV is a copy cat criminal. He does da same to
Linda.
Diane – how do you know who is posting as the Original Ken, unless he is your sockpuppet?
BTW, you said “Flynn and Obama” when you meant to say Flynn and Trump.
As for McCabe, I don’t have any specifics as to how or whether he might have misled authorities, maybe there is a problem. But they positively, definitely are not anywhere in the same category.
No, pay attention. My hypothetical was Flynn and Obama.
Regarding McCabe, it’s very telling that you don’t have any specifics as to how or whether he might have misled authorities, yet magically you know they are not in the same category. Your lack of objectivity completely destroys your credibility; as well as those that applaud your bias.
Nicely done!
When McCabe is alleged to have committed Treason, money laundering, and fraud, I’ll consider them the same. They’re not.
As far as not knowing the specifics of McCabe, none of us do unless of course, you’ve read the IG report.
So is that positively, definitely your final answer?
When McCabe is alleged to have committed Treason, money laundering, and fraud, I’ll consider them the same.
So when that standard of yours is reached then you’ll consider them the same? Hmmm, let’s test that standard. Hillary Clinton has been alleged to have committed all of that and then some. Obama, yup. Lot’s of allegations. Yet you expend none of your energy on them.
I’ll repeat: Your lack of objectivity completely destroys your credibility; as well as those that applaud your bias.
In other words, you are a complete waste of time for anyone interested in the rule of law. A lot of people died trying to get this nation to the 14th amendment. Same for getting rid of the Jim Crow laws. You are a disgrace to all of that.
My tendency is to focus on the clear and present danger. Spend your time on Benghazi and Whitewater if you like while Bolton leads Trump into bombing North Korea and Iran.
Judicial Watch: New Documents Show FBI Deputy Director McCabe Did Not Recuse Himself from the Clinton Email Scandal Investigation until Week Before Presidential Election
NOVEMBER 03, 2017
His Wife’s Campaign Received $700,000 from Clinton Friends
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released Justice Department records showing that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe did not recuse himself from the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, non-government email server until Tuesday, November 1, 2016, one week prior to the presidential election. The Clinton email probe was codenamed “Midyear Exam.”
While working as Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office, McCabe controlled resources supporting the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. An October 2016 internal FBI memorandum labeled “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office,” details talking points about McCabe’s various potential conflicts of interest, including the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s illicit server, which officially began in July 2015:
While at [Washington Field Office] did Mr. McCabe provide assistance to the Clinton investigation?
After the referral was made, FBI Headquarters asked the Washington Field Office for personnel to conduct a special investigation. McCabe was serving as [Assistant Director] and provided personnel resources. However, he was not told what the investigation was about. In February 2016 McCabe became Deputy Director and began overseeing the Clinton investigation.
The Overview also shows if asked whether McCabe played any role in his wife’s campaign, the scripted response was: “No. Then-[Assistant Director] McCabe played no role, attended no events and did not participate in fundraising or support of any kind.”
In June 2017, Circa reported that social media photos showed “McCabe wearing a T-shirt supporting his wife’s campaign during a public event and then posting a photo on social media urging voters to join him in voting for his wife.” The Justice Department IG is investigating whether McCabe properly disclosed payments to his wife’s campaign on his ethics report, as well as possible Hatch Act violations.
The Overview attempts to deflect concerns regarding the timing of the announcement of Mrs. McCabe’s candidacy in mid-March 2015, fast on the heels of Clinton’s illicit server becoming public knowledge.
The news that Clinton used a private email server broke March 2, 2015. Five days later, former Clinton Foundation board member and Democrat party fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe met with the McCabes to recruit her for a run for the state Senate. She announced her candidacy on March 12. Soon afterward, McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated nearly $700,000 (40% of the campaign’s total funds) to McCabe’s wife for her campaign. Around that time, Gov. McAuliffe would also come under criminal investigation by the FBI.
An April 29, 2015, document titled “Protocol regarding Potential Conflicts of Interest” sent from the Washington Field Office to various FBI officials – and self-approved by McCabe – indicates that he was “consulting with individuals within the Washington Field Office and [FBI headquarters]” prior to the announcement of his wife’s political campaign:
In March 2015, Dr. Jill McCabe announced her candidacy for Virginia State Senate. Dr. McCabe is the wife of Washington Field Office ADIC Andrew McCabe. Prior to Dr. McCabe’s official announcement, the [assistant director] consulted with individuals within [Washington Field Office] and [FBI headquarters] to identify limitations on his participation in her campaign and to identify areas where Dr. McCabe’s campaign may present potential conflicts of interest for the ADIC in WFO investigations and operations. [Emphasis added]
While this same document advises against McCabe’s involvement in “all public corruption investigations” concerning the state of Virginia during the campaign, no restrictions are advised in his involvement in Virginia cases following the campaign or his involvement with the Clinton email investigation. Also, it advises with respect to other conflicts of interest the Washington Field Office “will assess all other matters on a case-by-case basis,” and provide a “protocol” for their examination, which would be reviewed by a subordinate of McCabe’s, the Chief Division Counsel.
“The FBI is compromised. Mr. McCabe should have been nowhere near the Hillary Clinton investigations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “That he saw fit to recuse himself only days before the election further demonstrates the FBI’s Clinton email investigation was a sham. No wonder it took a year and a federal lawsuit to get these records. It is well past time for the Justice Department to reopen the Clinton email investigation.”
Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a July 24, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an October 24, 2016, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01494)). Judicial Watch seeks:
All records of communication between FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and other FBI or Department of Justice officials regarding ethical issues concerning the involvement of Andrew McCabe and/or his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, in political campaigns;
All records related to ethical guidance concerning political activities provided to Deputy Director McCabe by FBI and/or DOJ officials or elements.
Judicial Watch filed a related suit on behalf of Jeffrey A. Danik, a 30-year veteran, retired FBI supervisory special agent, against the Department of Justice for records related to McCabe (Jeffrey A. Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01792)). The suit was filed in support of Danik’s October 25, 2016, and February 28, 2017, FOIA requests for records about McCabe’s “conflicts of interest” regarding his wife’s political campaign, and McCabe’s reporting to the FBI of any job interviews or offers. Specifically, the two FOIA requests seek:
Text messages and emails of McCabe containing “Dr. Jill McCabe,” “Jill,” “Common Good VA,” “Terry McAuliffe,” “Clinton,” “Virginia Democratic Party,” “Democrat,” “Conflict,” “Senate,” “Virginia Senate,” “Until I return,” “Paris,” “France,” “Campaign,” “Run,” “Political,” “Wife,” “Donation,” “OGC,” Email,” or “New York Times.”
Additionally, Judicial Watch filed a July 26 FOIA lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01493)), which seeks:
Any and all Standard Forms 50 and 52 (i.e., SF-50s and SF-52s) for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe;
Any and all requests for approvals of travel submitted by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe;
Any and all travel vouchers and accompanying receipts and related documentation submitted by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe;
Any and all calendar entries for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Enigma said, “My tendency is to focus on the clear and present danger.”
And that is a permissible bias well worthy of enthusiastic applause without regard to the race of the person applauded.
P. S. Has anyone noticed that the tin-foil hat conventioneers have not answered the obvious question that was posed to them. Let’s try it one more time:
If there is a conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime he didn’t commit and which is not even a crime, then why has Trump not yet been charged with any crime at all–not even a crime that would be a crime, nor even a crime that Trump may very well have committed???
Since when did the act of investigating someone become misprision of justice?
Since when did misprision of justice occur before criminal charges were filed against someone?
Diane – because the investigation has been going on for a year and millions of dollars have been spent, but we haven’t identified a crime for the main suspect.
My tendency is to focus on the clear and present danger.
So does my 9 year old. Last week it was about eating vegetables and getting caught using his portable DVD player after bedtime. Your myopic tendencies are just as childish. The adults in the room aren’t simply interested in individual events such as Benghazi and Whitewater, or individuals such as Hillary and McCabe. Those are examples, objects of a much greater concern and that is how the entire political class has adulterated the rule of law. Prosecute anyone and everyone that violates the law equally. And remove anyone from office that violates their oath. Stop making it partisan. It just diminishes whatever point you’re trying to make and it makes you look small-minded; like a 9 year old still not getting the whole right from wrong thing.
Olly, how do you format your replies so that you can make italicized and bold words?
To italicize you put em bracketed by before what you want italicized and then to end what you want italicized you put /em after it. Same for bold but instead use the letter b on the front end with /b bracketed on the back end.
Hopefully this comes out correctly. 😉
And it didn’t.
“bracketed by this that.”
Oh boy. Try this link. I use “em” to italicize but this link shows the letter “I”. I’m testing the letter “I” in what I’m writing here.
https://www.wikihow.com/Create-Bold-and-Italicized-Text-in-HTML
Olly, I am not sure of your directions. [em]bracketed and other combinations didn’t seem to work[/em] or at least I didn’t see the results as I was typing. Is em a symbol or the letters that need to be typed? Which bracket (capitalized bracket or lower case bracket). I’m using a Mac.
See the brackets used by Turley in this header?
JONATHAN TURLEY
Those are what you use around the letter “i” and “b” to begin the italicized and bolded word or phrase and then add the “/” inside the brackets before the “I” or “b” to end it.
Olly, I didn’t realize these were the brackets you were talking about. I thought you meant [ ].
Anyway I think I got it. Thanks.
It didn’t help that my wi-fi kept turning off.
I learned not to play with a computer when I bought the Apple 2. For ten days I played with it, put a portion of my business on it and created two games for the kids. It was making me crazy and keeping me from my business so I put it away and never ever tried to delve deeply into the computer lest I become addicted.
Well I guess using lower case i works just fine.
OLLY lower case seems to work.
Olly, did you have to open text edit?
Trying something:
Let me see
if this works
And if this works
Or if this works
and finally
I’ll try this.
Olly, I guess I got my answer, but now I have to figure out how to turn it all off.
Judicial Watch: New FBI Records Show FBI Leadership’s Conflicts of Interest Discussions on Clinton Email Investigation
NOVEMBER 21, 2017
Advised of possible conflict of interest between Jill McCabe candidacy and Clinton email investigation, Comey responded that he “has no issue with it”
Dep. Dir. McCabe used official FBI email to promote wife’s candidacy: ‘Check her out
on Facebook as Dr. Jill McCabe for Senate.’
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 79 pages of Justice Department documents concerning ethics issues related to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s involvement with his wife’s political campaign. The documents include an email showing Mrs. McCabe was recruited for a Virginia state senate race in February 2015 by then-Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam’s office.
The news that Clinton used a private email server broke five days later, on March 2, 2015. Five days after that, former Clinton Foundation board member and Democrat party fundraiser, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, met with the McCabes. She announced her candidacy on March 12. Soon afterward, Clinton/McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated nearly $700,000 (40% of the campaign’s total funds) to McCabe’s wife for her campaign.
Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a July 24, 2017, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed after the Justice Department failed to respond to an October 24, 2016, FOIA request (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:17-cv-01494)). Judicial Watch seeks:
All records of communication between FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and other FBI or Department of Justice officials regarding ethical issues concerning the involvement of Andrew McCabe and/or his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, in political campaigns;
All records related to ethical guidance concerning political activities provided to Deputy Director McCabe by FBI and/or DOJ officials or elements.
An October 23, 2016, email shows McCabe running the response effort to a Wall Street Journal article that was published that day, titled “Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife.” McCabe provides Michael Kortan, the assistant director of Public Affairs, his version of a timeline of events surrounding the Clinton investigation and his wife’s campaign. McCabe said he contacted then-FBI Chief of Staff Chuck Roseburg about Jill McCabe’s candidacy and was told that “the D [Comey] has no issue with it.” (Judicial Watch earlier this month released documents showing that McCabe finally did recuse himself from the Clinton investigation only a week before last year’s presidential election.)
Internally, the Wall Street Journal article started a flurry of emails among Mrs. McCabe’s campaign, Kortan, Director McCabe, and the FBI’s General Counsel. Part of that exchange is an email from McCabe to someone in the General Counsel’s Office: “Sucks pretty much. Buckle in. It’s going to get rough.” The colleague responds, “I know. It’s awful. I shouldn’t be shocked by now, but I really am appalled.” McCabe also forwarded the article to Comey who responded, “Copy.”
On October 24, 2016, a memo was sent to all Special Agents in Charge, Assistant Directors, Executive Directors and the General Counsel’s Office regarding the Wall Street Journal article discussing campaign activities concerning Mrs. McCabe. Kortan suggested that questions could be referred to his office and he attached an “Overview of Deputy Director McCabe’s Recusal Related To Dr. McCabe’s Campaign for Political Office.” The Overview itself was previously reported by Judicial Watch.
The documents also show repeated use of the official FBI email system in connection with Mrs. McCabe’s political campaign. For example:
On March 13, 2015, Mrs. McCabe emails to her husband’s official FBI email account a draft press release announcing her run for state Senate.
In August 2015, McCabe uses his official FBI email account to advise a redacted recipient to visit his wife’s campaign website: “Jill has been busy as hell since she decided to run for VA state senate (long story). Check her out on Facebook as Dr. Jill McCabe for Senate.”
On November 2, 2015, Mrs. McCabe forwards an email to her husband – then the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Office – that accuses her opponent of extorting local businessmen. The email was sent to her husband’s official FBI account.
The documents include an October 2016 letter from House Government Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz to McCabe questioning a possible conflict of interest by noting that Clinton headlined a Virginia fundraiser on June 26, 2015, for Mrs. McCabe. “A significant amount was donated after the FBI had initiated its investigation and begun meeting with Secretary Clinton’s attorneys in August 2015.”
The documents also show that FBI leadership was sensitive to reports of FBI internal dissent with then-Director Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation. On October 24, 2016, Mrs. McCabe forwarded to Director McCabe a True Pundit article titled, “FBI Director Lobbied Against Criminal Charges For Hillary After Clinton Insider Paid His Wife $700,00.” The story reported that former FBI Executive Assistant Director John Giacalone resigned in the middle of the Clinton email investigation because he saw it going “sideways” and that Jill McCabe received money from a PAC headed by McAuliffe, who was under investigation by the FBI for campaign finance law violations. McCabe forwarded the article to Comey, noting “FYI. Heavyweight source.” Comey replied to McCabe, copying Chief of Staff James Rybicki, saying, “This still reads to me like someone not involved in the investigation at all, maybe somebody who heard rumors …”
“These new documents show that the FBI leadership was politicized and compromised in its handling of the Clinton email investigation,” said Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch President. “It well past time for a do-over on the Clinton emails that requires a new, honest criminal investigation of her misconduct.”
The Senate Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Special Counsel have opened investigations into whether McCabe violated the Hatch Act and failed to properly disclose payments to his wife’s campaign on his ethics report. The Justice Department’s Inspector General is examining McCabe for failing to recuse himself from the Clinton investigation due to his meeting with McAuliffe.
Judicial Watch filed a separate FOIA suit on behalf of retired FBI Supervisory Special Agent Jeffrey A. Danik against the Department of Justice. Additionally, Judicial Watch filed FOIA lawsuits seeking employment records and communications related to McCabe.
A Democratic Governor donated money to a Democratic candidate. Allanonsense claims it’s a conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that’s not a crime and that Trump didn’t commit, anyway.
That Democratic Governor was previously a campaign manager for a Democratic candidate for president. Allanonsense claims that it’s a conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that’s not a crime and that Trump didn’t commit, anyway.
Meanwhile, Allanonsense claims that campaign contributions are protected speech under The First Amendment and, therefore, not a crime–unless a Democratic Governor contributes to the campaign of a Democratic candidate. And that is the criminalization of politics in America.
Moreover, Trump, Guliani and Guliani’s unnamed sources at the FBI were busily planting fake news in the public press to smear McCabe and the FBI in an effort to make good on Trump’s campaign themes of “the system is rigged, [HRC] should never have been allowed to run” and “Crooked H; lock her up.” Toward that end, Trump and Guliani browbeat and whipsawed Comey into reopening the Clinton email investigation elevn days before the 2016 election. And that’s the politicization of the law in America.
Now, if there’s a conspiracy to frame Trump for crime Trump didn’t commit and that is not even a crime, then why has Trump not yet even been charged with any crime at all–not even a crime that would be a crime, nor even a crime that Trump might very well have committed???
Diane – the FBI sat on the Weiner laptop for a month before announcing they were reopening the email investigation. 33,000 of Hillary’s emails were on Weiner’s laptop along with pictures of his wiener. 18 of those were classified. He was supposed to print them out for Huma to give to Hillary. Evidently the printers in the State Dept. don’t work. BTW, one of the emails was from Obama using a nom de plume and should have been classified. Huma was able to tell the difference between material that should and should not be classified.
What a mishmash of garbage from Diane. The article was from Jucidial Watch so any complaint you have with the written word is with Judicial Watch, but you make up a false dialogue of what the article says and then you blame me.
McCabe was a bad actor and you just don’t want to admit it because he did his dirty work in support of your ideology. He didn’t maintain arms length in his political dealings which is a necessity for an FBI agent especially one second in command.
Diane instead of trying to inject a newly learned vocabulary word into your comments every day you should learn to read what is already written.
Turley creates false equivalencies. It’s in the conservative training manual. Also, in the Weyrich training manual (Theocracy Watch), falsehoods are declared necessary.
It’s obvious when plea deals are made, that lesser charges for offenses, which others might commit and have their infractions ignored, occur. DUI and domestic violence suspects plead down to minor missteps, that would never provoke enforcement on their own.
When Flynn’s testimony is disclosed, we will see the gulf of difference between the two.
Linda – where in Theocracy Watch is this training manual?
http://www.theocracywatch.org/yurica_weyrich_manual.htm
leads to
therealtruthproject.blogspot.com/2011/02/integration-of-theory-and-practice.html
leads to
http://www.thetruthproject.org/~/media/files/PDF/ttp-leader-guide-final.ashx
As usual …. nothing connects nor is any explanation offered.
Michael Aarethun – the link to the manual was broken, so no joy there. Your other sites were interesting. I have seen worse stuff in the Baltimore Catechism.
It’s called a false premise which leads to an incorrect conclusion. Something you do on a daily basis.
“It’s obvious when plea deals are made, that lesser charges for offenses, which others might commit and have their infractions ignored, occur. DUI and domestic violence suspects plead down to minor missteps, that would never provoke enforcement on their own.”
About “plead down”: At law (at least here in Ohio) the expression is “lesser included offense” — keyword “included.”
For instance, one might threaten someone by saying, ” I’m gonna punch your lights out.” That person could then be charged with “aggravated menacing” (threatening serious physical harm), and then plead down to “menacing” (threatening physical harm, but not necessarily serious), or “disorderly conduct” (a catch-all crime for unruly behavior).
Those are the possibility for pleading “aggravated menacing” down to a lesser offense, because they are designated as being included in the charged offense — just like “assault” is (obviously) included in “murder.” If one commits murder, there was obviously an assault as well.
But you can’t plead a charge down to some lesser charge that isn’t included in the greater charge.
Lying to the FBI is NOT a lesser included offense in any of the crimes Flynn is alleged to have committed. It’s a stand-alone crime. So to get Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI, they were IGNORING his other alleged crimes, not allowing Flynn to “plead down.”
Step by step- In the “DUI…” examples, the prosecutor starts with the max. offense possible. In the Flynn example, the prosecutor started with the least possible charge and recommend the least sentence (leaving open the door for future charges). Flynn’s attorneys bargained for him, charges or sentencing or both. We don’t know what the bargaining entailed in entirety. The Flynn confession- senior transition officials directed his contacts with Russian officials…. McCabe didn’t even come close to that egregious crime.
BTW- The Ohio GOP stakes claim for making Ohio, the 10th most gerrymandered state in the nation. Timken Island sound familiar? The GOP fleeced Ohioans of $1 bil. so that big campaign donors to the state party, could operate on-line charter schools- absentee rates higher than 70% (if the names on the roster are even real and not duplicated). People in communities paid their hard earned taxes so that the kids in their neighborhoods could be educated, and Republicans, gave that money to virtual schools and gerrymandered the state so that the citizens couldn’t do anything to stop the exploitation.
“The Flynn confession- senior transition officials directed his contacts with Russian officials…. McCabe didn’t even come close to that egregious crime.”
“egregious crime”? — LOL. Try NO crime:
“Under the principle of desuetude — a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades — it is dead-letter.”
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/362948-why-did-flynn-lie-and-why-did-mueller-charge-him-with-lying
William Bayer said, “Lying to the FBI is NOT a lesser included offense in any of the crimes Flynn is alleged to have committed. It’s a stand-alone crime.”
Bayer insists upon at least two things: 1) the studious observation of the letter of the law and 2) complete and total denial of the spirit of the law. Unless, of course, the partisan shoe were on the other foot. Then Bayer reverses his own polarity to insist upon the spirit of the law while denying the letter of the same. That, too, is the criminalization of politics and the politicization of the law. And, in the case of Linda’s observation, Bayer also deploys the cheap rhetorical device known as refutation by minutia, unless Bayer would have us call it hair-splitting?
Diane – you bought a logic book, didn’t you? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. There are people on here you really do not want to call out for a one-on-one. You will end up a bloody stump in the corner. Think small steps for beginners. Stay away from the fallacies until you have the basics of logic down. Right now you cannot make a logical argument. Start there.
Logic schmogic! Logic is a tool for analyzing or constructing arguments. And nothing more than that. Logic is not an item of property that can be bought and sold in the marketplace. Nor does there exist any such thing as a sole proprietary franchise upon logic that would allow the likes of Paul Caviler Schulteacher to sue for trademark infringement any given argument that he deems to be illogical simply by dint of his disagreement with that argument. You have the mere word “logic”–devoid of der dang in sich. Now go have the word logic tattooed to your forehead and see if that sign will fool anyone else other than you whenever you see your own reflection in the pool of Miromir.
” Logic is not an item of property”
It is a relief to hear you say that Diane because after that nonresponsive reply to Paul one might have thought you were going to go to Amazon and buy yourself a bit of logic, something you greatly lack.
Once in a while someone says that Turley is a conservative. Again: show me!!!
Or is it just that he is not a liberal of the bleedin’ heart variety?
That was directed to Linda.
Above, in this comment thread, Michael Aarethun responded to a request for a link to the Weyrich training manual at Theocracy Watch (Weyrich was the founder of the Heritage Foundation which is funded by the Koch’s. Clarence Thomas’s wife earned $600,000 at Heritage). The manual explains the conservative movement as it exists politically, today.
The bulk of the financing for the conservative movement is from Charles and David Koch (Jane Mayer’s book and article in New York magazine, titled Dark Money, provides elaboration), so the movement reflects their opinions The two Koch brothers are spending $400,000,000 in the midterm elections, almost exclusively on Republicans. Mike Pence reflects their preference in candidates. They provide funding for ALEC, whose membership is almost entirely Republican. ALEC drafts a template of state laws, reflecting corporate interests and occasionally conservative values like “stand your ground”. ALEC as a parallel organization, fits the description of a strategy from the Weyrich manual. Another prescribed strategy from the manual is reflected in the separation of one segment of religious institutions as liberal and the other as conservative, setting up a duopoly along political lines- the conservatives in opposition to gay marriage and in support of authoritarian , patriarchal leadership. The liberals advocate for the poor and equal justice.
The Koch’s vision is plutocracy which easily morphs into colonialism. Through the Koch’s efforts, labor now receives the lowest share of national income in U.S. recorded history. Groups associated with the Koch’s submitted 17 of the 19 amicus briefs in the Janus labor case currently before SCOTUS. The Koch’s, Bill Gates, Z-berg, the Waltons, etc. are working to privatize and corporatize America’s most important common good- public education.
Instead of thinking in terms of traditional markers for conservative and liberal, the divide is better defined by support for oligarchy vs. democracy, with the former labeled, Republican/Libertarian and, the latter, Democratic.
When categorizing a political commenter between the two, it’s as easy as separating out the preponderance of their positions. Do they commonly advance plutocracy or democracy? One indicator would be support for the free speech of White supremacists, like Spencer, a speaker funded by the richest 0.1% like Bannon was while in contrast, the political commenter remains silent about labor’s free speech. It might appear as avoidance or defense of Robert and Rebekah Mercer’s activities (GOP’er Nunes shut down the House investigation after 3 questions, “5 min. total” with the CEO of Cambridge Analytica). It may be a false equivalencybetween Republican Flynn’s contacts with Russia for financial deals that benefitted him personally wand McCabe’s domestic discussions unrelated to financial gain. It may be avoidance of topics like voter suppression and gerrymandering. In short, if the commenter never espouses an opinion different than the Koch’s and frequently appears to devalue democracy, he/she is a conservative. Each of us makes our own determination about the correct labeling.
Turley is an equal opportunity advocate for free speech. There is no need for him to advocate for free speech for “labor” as there has been no public argument or evidence that labor’s right to speak freely is under attack. The rest of your verbose statement has nothing at all to do with Turley.
Turley has always said (so far as I know) that the best antidote for “hate speech” is more speech. He has criticized the “antifa” faction for trying to drown out speech they disagree with. But nowhere have I seen an imbalance in his criticism by his favoring conservative attempts to forcefully limit liberal speech, if any such exist. Also, Turley has spoken out against “white supremacists.”
So again, Linda, I say it seems that in your mind it’s just that Turley is not a bleadin’ heart liberal.
That’s, “bleedin’ heart liberal.”
Linda, here’s an old Turley column in which he opposes gerrymandering.
https://jonathanturley.org/2010/02/11/you-say-you-want-a-revolution-how-to-reform-our-political-system/
You are all wet when you say that Turley has been silent about conservative wrong-doings (although both parties engage in gerrymandering when they are in power).
On the gerrymandering scene, this week, Republicans filed for the impeachment of Pennsylvania judges who made decisions against gerrymandering. A former, different Turley, thought the gerrymandering concept mattered 8 years ago. The donor class targeting judges, a significant amping up of control, provokes nothing from Turley, now?
“provokes nothing from Turley, now?”
Linda can’t read. Turley’s comments on gerrymandering were nonpartisan.
“End the practice of gerrymandering. We need a constitutional amendment requiring uniformity in districts to end gerrymandering, in which politicians distort the shape of districts to link pockets of Democratic or Republican voters. Districts should have geographic continuity, and should be established by a standard formula applied by an independent federal agency.”
That is not acceptable to Linda because in reality gerrymandering is fine with her as long as it benefits her point of view. She is a very selfish self-centered woman.
About the Republican targeting of judges in 2018 ????
Again can you actually be specific ?
If you are talking about the PA Supreme court justices – “targetting them is appropriate.
They were wrong on multiple levels.
They brought partisanship to the courts were it does not belong.
They actually issued an order they claimed was on a state constitutional grounds, without justifying that order.
Further there are no state constitutional grounds that can apply to federal elections.
The constitution is clear, matters related to the election of federal positions within a state are constitutionally delegated to the state legislature and subsequently subordinate to the federal branch or division to which they relate.
The state legislature gets to decide federal congressional districts, not the state as a whole, not the governor, and not the state courts.
The PA courts do not have jurisdiction.
In fact the federal courts do not have jurisdiction unless a federal laws or the federal constitution is violated.
The elections of people to federal offices is not a matter for the state government as a whole.
It is a matter for the state legislature.
Try reading the constitution.
As a separate matter, it is a ludicrously stupid idea for the courts to get involved in politics.
To the greatest extent possible the courts shoudl stay out of politics.
Claims of political corruption such as gerrymandering – rather than quid pro quo bribery are not the domain of the courts. They shoudl be decided by voters with each election.
If you do not like the way federal congessional districts are apportioned – vote out your state representatives.
Further the districts of your state representatives ARE the legitimate domain of state courts.
Yet, Turley was unable to find the news reports about a school teacher arrested for exerting her free speech in Louisiana this past winter.
Cannot be pardoned unless charged. about a seven second exercise using google
Michael – What was Nixon charged with?
A presidential pardon of Richard Nixon (Proclamation 4311) was issued on September 8, 1974, by President Gerald Ford, which granted his predecessor Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president.
The Nixon pardon is general knowledge among Americans, but not so much east of Germany.
Constitutional Law:
“*** 9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. ***” Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 333 333 (1866).
Key phrases: “any time after” the commission of an offense, including “before legal proceedings are taken.”
There has been lots of confusion about this issue, largely due to Obama having repeatedly LIED about constitutional law when asked whether he intended to pardon Hillary or Julian Assange or Edward Snowden.
Obama repeatedly lied about the issue to avoid answering whether he would use the pardon power for those individuals. He particularly didn’t want to answer about pardoning Snowden, so he lied about Constitutional Law:
“Obama replied: ‘I can’t pardon somebody who hasn’t gone before a court and presented themselves, so that’s not something that I would comment on at this point’.”
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/obama-says-he-cant-pardon-snowden/
A president can, in fact, pardon anyone for any federal crime, and do it before that person is even charged. Oddly — if Nixon constitutes a legal precedent — a president doesn’t even have to identify the alleged crime or crimes, or when or where the crimes were committed — matters which are required to be mentioned when prosecuting someone for a crime. When pardoning Nixon, Ford simply identified a fairly large time span and pardoned Nixon for his conduct during that time span.
That was the real problem with the Nixon pardon — not that Nixon got pardoned but because the alleged crimes for which Nixon was pardoned were not specified.