Mueller Aide Weissmann Calls On DOJ Attorneys Not To Help On Investigations [Updated]

Andrew-Weissman
Andrew Weissman.

I recently wrote a column discussing how Democratic leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden, have argued against continuing the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham despite growing evidence of misconduct by Justice Department officials and now the first guilty plea by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Now, Andrew Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has derided the Clinesmith plea while actually calling on Justice Department attorneys to refuse to help on ongoing investigations that could implicate aspects of his own prior work. [Update: I have include a longer quote from the column by the two authors and I have written another posting to address objections raised by Professor Goodman.]

I was among those who expressed concern when Mueller selected Weissmann due to his history of controversial prosecutorial decisions, including a pattern of prosecutorial overreach in the Enron litigation.

Weissmann’s recent statements (made before the release of his new book on the Russian investigation) have only served to reaffirm those concerns.

Recently, Weissmann wrote an extraordinary and disturbing New York Times op-ed (with former Defense Department special counsel Ryan Goodman). In the column, he appeared to call on Justice Department lawyers to undermine the Durham investigation as well as the investigation by U.S. Attorney John Bash’s investigation into the “unmasking” requests by Obama administration officials. They wrote “Justice Department employees in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.”  The two authors appear to dismiss not just the timing but the underlying investigations as political.

“Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.”

Consider that line for a moment.  Weissmann is openly calling on attorneys to refuse to help on investigations that could raise questions about his own decisions.  Durham is looking at a pattern errors, false statements, bias, and now criminal conduct in the Russian investigation. There is obviously overlap with the Mueller investigation which discussed many of the same underlying documents and relied on work by some of the same individuals.  The failure to address misconduct, bias, or criminal conduct by such individuals would be embarrassing to both Weissmann and Mueller. Despite that obvious conflict of interest, Weissmann is calling on attorneys to stand down.

It is the same troubling position that was once taken by Sally Yates, who told an entire federal agency not to assist the President in his travel ban.

After Weissmann called on Justice Department attorneys not to assist investigations by the Justice Department, Durham disclosed that the first guilty plea would be entered by Clinesmith. That would ordinarily cause embarrassment for someone who was calling for DOJ lawyers to effectively hinder the investigation.  Not Weissmann.  He has now attacked the criminal plea.

Weissmann mocked Attorney General Bill Barr to explain the difference between the Flynn plea and the Clinesmith plea.

Weissmann tweeted:

“Question for Barr: how are Flynn’s confessed lies to the FBI (repeated to the VP) not a crime, but Clinesmith changing an email (the full version of which he also sent to DOJ) is?

Clinesmith is charged with adding the words ‘not a source’ to an email about Carter Page, but no where does the charge say that is false, i.e. that Page was a source for the CIA. Without that, how is the addition ‘materially’ false?”

Here is Durham theory: even though Clinesmith gave the complete and accurate email to DOJ to use in the Page FISA, when asked by an FBI agent if the CIA had represented IN WRITING that Page was not a source, Clinesmith said yes, when CIA had not said so explicitly in writing. no where is it alleged that Page was in fact a CIA source or, if so, that Clinesmith knew that. How is any of this false or material to the Page FISA, using Barr’s new Flynn materiality standard. It’s not. Two systems of justice at play.”

“Clear from Durham charge that the FBI supervisor wanted to know if CIA confirmed “in writing” that Page was not a source because of distrust of CIA — but whether in writing or not, no allegation that Clinesmith lied about the fact Page was not a source. That’s a federal crime?”

The tweets reveal more about Weissmann than Clinesmith or this guilty plea.

First, Weissmann is completely distorting both the law and the facts to disregard the significance of this guilty plea. The fact that Page was a source for the CIA is not disputed. The Horowitz investigation and various congressional investigations have confirmed that the CIA made clear to Clinesmith that Page was working for United States intelligence, a fact that critically undermined the basis for the original application for secret surveillance. The statement that “no where does the charge say that is false, i.e. that Page was a source for the CIA” is bizarre. The charge is that Clinesmith made this false statement to the court and there is a wealth of evidence to support that charge. It was clearly enough to prompt Clinesmith to take a plea and enter into what appears a cooperative agreement with prosecutors.

Second, the claim that “Clinesmith gave the complete and accurate email to DOJ” would not negate the charge. It was the false information that he gave to the court that mattered. Prosecutorial misconduct often involves telling courts something different from what is known or discussed by prosecutors.  Moreover, the implications of such a contrast adds to the need for the investigation that Weissmann has sought to hinder.  If other DOJ attorneys and investigators knew that the court was being given false material information, the concerns are magnified not reduced for the Durham investigation.  Indeed, it means that this investigation dragged on for many months despite other attorneys knowing that the original claims of Page being a Russian assets were directly contradicted by American intelligence and never disclosed to the Court.

What is astonishing is that the FISA court itself as well as Horowitz have flagged this as a serious matter of false or misleading information. Weissmann however is actively seeking to convince Justice Department lawyers to refuse to help on the investigation.

Weissmann also misrepresents the law and the position of the Justice Department in Flynn.  I have been one of the most vocal critics of the plea.  It is true that Flynn gave false answers to the investigators.  However, he fought the allegations until the Mueller team drained him of his savings and threatened to prosecute his son.

440px-Michael_T_Flynn

Keep in mind that Flynn was the incoming National Security Adviser and held entirely lawful discussions with Russian diplomats. Even James Comey told President Obama that the discussions were “legit.” Moreover, in December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as “cutting off” another high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation. Recently disclosed material indicate that Obama, Biden, and other discussed the use of the Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations with foreign governments. The Logan Act is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic.

Then, in February 2017, Comey circumvented long-standing protocols and ordered an interview with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations, but he sent “a couple guys over” to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. Indeed, Yates recently agreed that Comey “went rogue” on the Flynn matter.

This history is what was detailed to the court in the Flynn motion to dismiss the charge. The materiality point reflected the governing law that indictments require more than mere “relevance” or relatedness but rather a statement that is “reasonably likely to influence the tribunal in making a determination required to be made.” United States v. Weinstock, 231 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (emphasis added). The distinction with Clinesmith is obvious. Clinesmith lied to the Court in an investigation to influence a “determination required to be made” by the court.

Imagine if this were not the rule. It would mean that any prosecutor could intentionally lie to a court to secure warrants or other actions without the risk of a criminal charge.  Yet, Weissmann is mocking the very notion that Clinesmith could be charged while insisting that his office was correct in prosecuting Flynn despite the absence of an ongoing federal case and the fact that the agents themselves did not believe Flynn intentionally lied. There is no question the Clinesmith lied and that the lie was critical to the court’s consideration of the FISA application.

Weissmann’s public effort to derail the Durham investigation and his distortion of the Clinesmith guilty plea only reinforces the view of many of us that the Durham investigation must be completed and made public. Despite saying that I did not believe that Mueller would find crimes of collusion or conspiracy with the Russians, I supported the Special Counsel investigation. I also supported the Horowitz investigation and the Durham investigation. The reason is the same. I believe that the public needs to have a full and transparent account of what happened in the Russian investigation on both sides. Like many, Weissmann would like transparency on only one side and to shutdown the Durham investigation despite Horowitz referring matters for criminal investigation and finding a host of false statements, errs, and professional misconduct.  Even the addition of a criminal plea has not stopped Weissmann from denouncing this investigation.

For years, I have criticized Weissmann’s record of dubious prosecutorial judgment, bias, and overreach. However, that case against Weissmann is not nearly as powerful as the case he is making against himself.

 

406 thoughts on “Mueller Aide Weissmann Calls On DOJ Attorneys Not To Help On Investigations [Updated]”

  1. How did Flynn lie to the FBI???? He said he did NOT discuss the sanctions.
    The sanctions the Obama administration developed were SEPARATE from the expulsions of diplomats, which Flynn DID discuss.
    KISLYAK brought up the sanctions and Flynn said NOTHING other than “yep.” “yep.”

    In other words, affirming he HEARD Kislyak but NOT responding. How is that considered a discussion?

    1. What Ms. Wheeler claims is irrelevant.

      It is crystal clear that Klinesmith LIED to the court.

      It is completely irrelevant what word games you wish to play over terms – the fact is that Page was engaged by the CIA.

      Further Klinesmith altered a CIA email adding the word “NOT”

      In doing so Klinesmith inverted the meaning of the CIA email.

      No one at DOJ/FBI gets to alter evidence to invert its meaning.

      If Klinesmith felt the CIA email was incorrect – he was free to contact the CIA and ask them to revise it.

      He was NOT free to revise it himself.

      The fact that you are trying to defend this type of reprehensible conduct is “deplorable”.

      It is highly unlikely that the FISA court would have granted the Page FISA warrant had the DOJ/FBI informed them that Page was engaged by the CIA – in any capacity.

      Further ALL Warrants are SWORN – read the 4th amendment – Klinesmith not merely lied – but he lied under oath.

      This is about 10,000 times worse that anything you are claiming regarding Flynn, Papadopaulis – even Stone.

      Klinesmith’s LIE resulted in infringement on the Civil Rights of not merely Page – but anything 2 hops from him.

  2. That move is completely unethical but very much lawyer like. Interfering with an ongoing case would get anyone else some overnight or more visits to the local cell facility. I reckon their counting on sailng whoops we sorry and keep doing it in one way or the other. That Meuller bunch was all suspiciously dirty one way or the other.s My take is they liked the huge salary for doing nothing and all of them were dirty for not coming out on day one and saying Collusion is not a crime. Instead they chose to join the conspiracy to show something anything regardless of ethic but regarding instead Que Bono watching the money trail go to their own pockets.

  3. Is Weissman arguing that the Flynn charges are bogus? Ot is he saying that because Flynn’s charges are being dropped due to improprieties by the FBI, we should not look into FBI misconduct?

    Either way, he is further disgracing the entire Mueller operation and showing it for what it was. A politically targeted persecution headed up by a doddering incompetent who let the partisans run roughshod over the administration of justice.

    I wonder if Weissman could be the subject of an ethics complaint?

    1. T137, charges against Flynn won’t be totally dismissed. An Appeals Court this week ruled in Judge Sullivan’s favor.

      1. Seth: no, the Court of Appeals for DC voted to rehear the case on Flynn’s application for a writ of mandamus and vacated the 3-judge panel’s ruling. Oral arguments were last week, but the CADC hasn’t yet ruled itself on the writ application.

          1. Yes, they sounded sympathetic during oral arguments. But they haven’t ruled yet. So claiming that they “ruled in Judge Sullivan’s favor” is false. They may well rule in his favor, but we won’t know til they actually rule.

          2. I do not know what the DCCA will do – neither do you Though I would note that Flynn already has two votes and he only needs 3 more – out of 8.

            What I would be Shocked to see DCCA do is allow Sullivan to appoint a an Amicus. To allow Sulivan to order the AG to do much of anything. To do anymore than have a very limited scope perfunctory hearing and drop the case.

            You can engage in all the wishful thinking you want but:

            Not a single judge ASKED to have the case heard en Banc – Sullivan had to request that – and he does not have standing to do so.
            Regardless, the fact that no judge ASKED – not one, means they start uninclined to interfere.

            My guess is that they will do something that allows Sullivan to save face. But that is it.

            If they do anything more substanitive – it will be appealed and most of this is decided law – some of it very recently decided.
            SCOTUS could well reverse without hearing it.

            This is DONE.

            That said – if you wish to drag this out – go ahead, the more Flynn is in the news the worse for Dems,.

            Pushing a legal travesty and a fraud on the courts is not a good look.

            Further how much more material do you think is going to be released ?

  4. Millie Weaver, widely known as Millennial Millie, a 29-year old conservative new media video and print journalist with a large following online, was arrested at her home in Ohio on Friday morning.

    Conservative Journalist Arrested & Jailed Ahead Of ‘ShadowGate’ Documentary Release

    Documentary exposes Deep State psychological operations against the American people

    https://banned.video/watch?id=5f37fcc2df77c4044ee2eb03

    1. George,

      Contained inside of Millie’s documentary among many other things it shows how the Deep State azzholes like Mueller/Weissmann can use that shadow gate IT AI algos to pick juries for trials which guarantee a guilty verdict for people like Roger Stone, etc…

      Currently the US’s FBI/DOJ/Courts look just like a Bananna Republic & all confidence into this corrupt system is all but gone.

      1. It kinda ‘splains why the biggest political crime in human history, the Obama Coup D’etat in America (i.e. Watergate on steroids with an exponent), is merely a phantom dissolving right before our very eyes; because many of the biggest names in the Western world would end up in a guillotine or prison.

  5. The blog should have a single topic on the history of American intelligence activity.
    Counter Intelligence Program. Aka Cointel Program. The MkUltra Program.

  6. This Passage From Weisman’s N Y Times Op Ed..

    Clearly States The Problem With Durham’s Pre-Fab October Surprise

    At least two developing investigations could be fodder for pre-election political machinations. The first is an apparently sprawling investigation by John Durham, the U.S. attorney in Connecticut, that began as an examination of the origins of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The other, led by John Bash, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, is about the so-called unmasking of Trump associates by Obama administration officials. Mr. Barr personally unleashed both investigations and handpicked the attorneys to run them.

    But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.

    The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate. If someone is charged immediately before an election, for instance, that person has no time to offer a defense to counter the charges. The closer the election, the greater the risk that the department is impermissibly acting based on political considerations, which is always prohibited.

    It is not mere conjecture that Mr. Barr could weaponize these investigations for political purposes. In both cases, he has already run roughshod over another related longstanding department practice. It holds that department officials should refrain from making public allegations of wrongdoing before prosecutors decide to bring charges, particularly since no charges may emanate from the investigation.

    Mr. Barr and President Trump have shown no compunction in publicly discussing these investigations, suggesting wrongdoing by Democrats and deep staters. Mr. Barr promised on Fox News that “there will be public disclosure in some form” in the Durham probe. It should be no surprise that Mr. Barr has followed the lead of his boss; after all, Mr. Trump urged Ukraine to announce an investigation into Mr. Biden, an action that was at the center of his impeachment.

    Not so long ago, Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump denounced Jim Comey’s negative public commentary in the 2016 election on Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the president claimed that Mr. Comey’s violation of these bedrock policies contributed to his being fired. During his nomination hearing, Mr. Barr told a Senate committee that he would adhere to these policies.

    Edited From: “James Comey Wrote A Letter In 2016. What Will Bill Bar Do?”

    The New York Times, 8/5/20

  7. When I read the charging documents what struck me was this paragraph “ On August 17, 2016 prior to the approval of FISA the OGA provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurrican Team a memorandum indicating individual #1 had been approved as an operational contact for the OGA…“. What certain members had this even before the first FISA application? Perhaps we being seeing them again in round 2 of Durham vs. the Deep State…

    1. “What certain members had this even before the first FISA application?”

      The Horowitz report notes that “On April 6, 2016, NYFO opened a counterintelligence [redacted] investigation on Carter Page” (https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf, p. 63). In light of that, I’m not sure why you think it inappropriate for the CIA to let the FBI know that Page had been an operational contact for the CIA years prior.

  8. Last Year The Senate Intelligence Committee Sent Letter To Justice Department..

    Citing ‘Potential Lies’ By Steve Bannon And Erick Prince Regarding Russian Contacts

    The Senate Intelligence Committee has sent a bipartisan letter to the Justice Department asking federal prosecutors to investigate Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump confidant, for potentially lying to lawmakers during its investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    The letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, was signed by the panel’s then-chairman, Republican Sen. Richard M. Burr, and its ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner.

    It also raised concerns about testimony provided by family members and confidants of President Trump that appeared to contradict information provided by a former deputy campaign chairman to Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Those it identified as providing such conflicting testimony were the president’s son Donald Trump Jr., his son-in-law Jared Kushner, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks.

    The letter, which has not before been made public, was sent July 19, 2019, to Deborah Curtis, a top prosecutor in the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington. It is not clear what action the Justice Department has taken on the referral. Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment.

    The letter names Bannon, the chief executive of the 2016 Trump campaign and later a top White House strategist, and two other men — Erik Prince, a private security contractor, and Sam Clovis, who served as co-chairman of Trump’s campaign.

    Criminal referrals from Capitol Hill have been somewhat common since Trump took office in 2017. But this one is rare because it involves the bipartisan leaders of a Senate panel that conducted its own probe without devolving into the partisan bickering that consumed its counterpart in the House of Representatives.

    According to the letter, the committee believed Bannon may have lied about his interactions with Erik Prince, a private security contractor; Rick Gerson, a hedge fund manager; and Kirill Dmitriev, the head of a Russian sovereign fund.

    All were involved in closely scrutinized meetings in the Seychelles before Trump’s inauguration.

    The committee also believed Prince, best known as the founder of the former mercenary company Blackwater and the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, may have lied about his interactions with Dmitriev.

    No charges were filed in connection with the meetings. But investigators suspected that the men may have been seeking to arrange a clandestine back-channel between the incoming Trump administration and Moscow. It’s unclear from the committee’s letter what Bannon and Prince might have lied about, but he and Prince have told conflicting stories about the Seychelles meeting.

    Prince said he returned to the United States and updated Bannon about his conversations; Bannon said that never happened, according to the special counsel’s office.

    The committee also asked the Justice Department to investigate Sam Clovis, a former co-chairman of the Trump campaign, for possibly lying about his interactions with Peter W. Smith, a Republican donor who led a secret effort to obtain former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s missing emails. Clovis could not be reached.

    In the two page-letter, the committee raised concerns that testimony given to it by the president’s family and advisors contradicted what Rick Gates, the former deputy campaign chairman, told the Special Counsel about when people within the Trump campaign knew about a June 9 meeting at Trump tower with a Russian lawyer.

    Edited from: “Senate Committee Sought Investigation Of Bannon, Raised Concerns About Trump Family Testimony”

    The Los Angeles Times, 8/14/20

    1. Who was president in 2016? well that would be Hussain Obama. Where were the resources being inserted? Were they being utilized to truly check on all foreign attempted interference, or were they directed to implicate Donald Trump. We now know, don’t we. The committee believed, the committee believed, the committee believed……..I believe that Robert Mueller and team were paid approx $30 million over nearly 3 years and as such would/should be considered to be all inclusive in said Russian Hoax investigation. Now, let’s soon find out what the John Durham reports reflect. I personally believe they will do a good job of whitewashing Obama and his admin to so-call save the system. That will leave America with no rule of law except those laws they choose to enforce and proceed on with.

      1. Lighteredknot, we never heard from you before. You just popped in out of the blue to comment right here?

        1. Peter – Stop it!!! You are not the gatekeeper of the blog. Turley is adding his commentary to his Twitter, so we are getting new people. Leave them alone. Either deal with their arguments or leave them alone. Do NOT drive them off.

          1. Paul, who are you kidding here?? Do you honestly think new commenters just pop out of the blue to suddenly challenge Seth Warner?? Not on this blog! This troll has been super active since March and he never stops.

            Paul, I would assume that as a Theatre Director you’ve read numerous plays. Have you ever mistaken Tennessee William for Sam Shepard? Have you ever mistaken William Inge for David Mamet? Of course you haven’t. If this troll had the talent of a fine writer he wouldn’t waste his talents on trolling. If he had the ability to create multiple, unique characters, he’d be writing million dollar scripts.

            1. Peter – when I first read Mamet’s Glengarry Glen Ross, my first comment was “I hope this plays better than it reads.” And it did, Besides that, you are not the gatekeeper. There can be as many sockpuppets as one can handle. The current record is 27 in one day.

          2. PCS,

            Joe Biden is going to win.

            Why are the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) going so crazy?

            Isn’t there a formal diagnosis of psychosis related to a person’s inability to cope with, adapt to or accept success?

            Things are strange.

            It’s as if the Deep Deep State initiated a deranged and hyperactive rebellion (insurrection bots) which it can’t put back in the bottle.

  9. Turley says “Weissmann is openly calling on attorneys to refuse to help on investigations that could raise questions about his own decisions,” citing a sentence in a NYT op ed, “Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort.”

    But if you actually read that sentence in context, you’ll see that it’s a reference to taking public actions before an election:
    “Today, Wednesday, marks 90 days before the presidential election, a date in the calendar that is supposed to be of special note to the Justice Department. That’s because of two department guidelines, one a written policy that no action be influenced in any way by politics. Another, unwritten norm urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election.
    “Attorney General William Barr appears poised to trample on both. … But Justice Department employees, in meeting their ethical and legal obligations, should be well advised not to participate in any such effort. The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate.”

    So this is yet another example of Turley either purposefully or ignorantly twisting evidence (in this case, text from an op-ed).

    1. The genesis of the department’s admirable practice of creating a protective shell surrounding an election recognizes that unelected officials at the Justice Department should not take action that could distort an election and influence the electorate.

      However, the DOJ should absolutely dump admiral practices for the honorable and bring into sharp relief injustices perpetrated by candidates for the upcoming election.

      1. “injustices perpetrated by candidates for the upcoming election.”

        OLLY, surely you know that Clinesmith isn’t a candidate.

        1. Surely you aren’t so dishonest that you would pretend to not understand my comment had nothing to do with Clinesmith.

          Try again.

          1. No, I didn’t understand that. Clinesmith is the one who’s being charged, and Turley’s column is about Weissman’s comments re: Clinesmith’s charge and Weissman and Goodman’s column in relation to Clinesmith’s charge. You can want what you say (and of course none of our personal desires have any effect on DOJ policy), but even then, it doesn’t apply in this case.

        2. Neither is Weissman.

          The candidate that was being damaged by inappropriate behavior by the IC was Trump. He is entitled to have the truth come out to clear his name.

    2. Yeah, Commit, Durham has a pre-fabricated ‘October Surprise’ to upend the campaign. And Republicans will respond to that observation with a What About. As in, ‘What about the impeachment? Wasn’t that election year politics?”

      That’s where we’re going to be about 2 months from now.

      1. Some are saying that the Mid-East peace deal was the October surprise. Durham isn’t a surprise at all since he has been investigating for some time. Paint Chips, you want the ability to lie and have no one respond at all. That isn’t going to happen.

    3. Thanks for actually reading the op-ed CTHD, something JT either did not do before writing his “besides the point” column or purposefully glossed over. As in most of his columns, this is a regular question. Can he get anything right?

      1. BtB: and the thing is, lawyers have professional conduct rules that apply in and out of the courtroom. Turley is admitted to the DC Bar, one of the rules is: “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: … (c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; …”

        Turley repeatedly misrepresents things in his columns and generally makes no attempt to correct them, even when corrections are emailed to him.

        1. “Turley repeatedly misrepresents things in his columns and generally makes no attempt to correct them, even when corrections are emailed to him.”

          Wow!!! The dishonest one who has no morals or ethics is calling Professor Turley a liar!!! This barely intelligent individual thinks Professor Turley has to respond to her arrogance and stupidity?

          She Needs to be Committed. She thinks her Wants are the only important things even when she is being given something for free.

          I give Professor Turley a lot of credit for not booting this piece of … off the blog. It shows his deep committment to free speech even thought this blog is privately owned.

    4. “So this is yet another example of Turley either purposefully or ignorantly twisting evidence (in this case, text from an op-ed).”

      Not at all. Being morally deficient you probably do not recognize that the totality of this case starts even before Trump was elected President. It covered that election, the midterms and now another presidential election over 4 years later than the onset. There was no complaint from the left about how these accusations affected those elections. The results of the misdeeds of Weissman and others may very well extend to the next midterms and even the 2024 election. That is how deep the the left has gone to expropriate power from the people.

      There is no stopping point and Weissman is caught up in a large part so he can be assumed to be lying while making his case. Weissman has not been an honest broker for decades. We need resolution and if Weissman ended up in jail that would be a big step in healing the nation.

        1. Of course, so this story is only useful in showing us how morally incompetent Needs to be Committed is.

        2. Paul:

          a) They weren’t investigating Trump.
          b) The op-ed said “defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election,” and there was NO public info about Crossfire Hurricane before the 2016 election.

          1. Committ – aren’t a series of FISA warrants and phones taps overt? Or do we have to decide what is is?

            1. The FISA warrants weren’t made public prior to the election.

              In “defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election,” the adverb “publicly” applies to both “charging” and “taking any other overt investigative steps.”

                1. Page wasn’t a candidate.

                  And AGAIN, it wasn’t a publicly overt act against Page prior to the election. No matter how much you try to ignore it, they were discussing an “unwritten norm [that] urges officials to defer publicly charging or taking any other overt investigative steps or disclosures that could affect a coming election” (emphasis added). The FISA warrant applications weren’t public, so they couldn’t affect the election.

                  You say “public or secret” as if the difference doesn’t matter, when the difference is central to their statement. You’re not a stupid person, Paul; I think you’re capable of understanding this.

                  1. Committ – a FISA warrant allows you to double hop. I tap your phone and then I tap the phones of everyone you talk to and then I tap the phones of everyone they talk to. That is OVERT!!!!

                    1. Even if what you claim is true (as always, you present no evidence), it’s irrelevant because they weren’t publicly taking overt investigative steps. What part of” publicly” confuses you?

                    2. “Even if what you claim is true (as always, you present no evidence), it’s irrelevant because they weren’t publicly taking overt investigative steps. What part of” publicly” confuses you?”

                      Who is “they” ?

                      Regardless, there are very few crimes where “public” is an element.

                      Nearly all crimes are comited in private.

                2. How so ?

                  Is Durham prosecuting Trump ? Biden ?

                  Should the DOJ stop doing EVERYTHING before the election – because anything DOJ does – either makes Trump look good or Bad one or the other.

                  Should they not prosecute Drug dealers ?

                  Why is prosecuting a member of government who committed a fraud upon the court “effecting the election” more than the ordinary actions of DOJ ?

              1. The argument that Durham’s actions would effect the election requires you to beleive that the public is not required to know the truth.

                You have been lying for 4 years. I see zero problems with Durham spending all of the next several months exposing those lies.

                Are you a candidate for President ? Is the press ?

                Do you actually beleive that Durham should keep quiet so that voters are DENIED the truth before the election ?

                IS that your idea of a fair and honest election ?

                That voters should be deliberately deprived of the truth ?

          2. How disingenuous one can be. Admiral Rodgers had to warn Trump during his campaign for the Republican nomination that he was being spied on and Trump had to move his campaign headquarters from Trump Towers.

            How many leaks and lies appeared on the front page of the WP from anonymous sources?

          3. How does this “effect the coming election” ?

            Do you think Durham is investigating Biden ?

            Determining that DOJ/FBI or Mueller behaved improperly should not impact the upcoming election.

            Unless of course you beleive that the public should NOT be allowed to know about the witchhunt that the left has engaged in over the past 4 years.

            If we are going to refrain from anything that might remotely “effect the upcoming election”, then we should wish C19 away,
            We should preclude any stimulus or assistance to anyone for any reason.

            We should stall all foreign policy.

            I have no idea what Barr/Durham will do, but the DOJ rules do not impede Barr/Durham from investigating the misconduct of the DOJ/FBI or Mueller and his team right up through election day.

            They might prohibit announcing a new investigation into Biden or Harris.

            Obama and DOJ/FBI have made it crystal clear that Barr/Wray CAN investigate Biden/Harris – so long as they do not mention it publicly until the day after the election.

            You left wing nuts have very Bizzarre standards.

            Mueller/Weisman are NOT running in this election.

            Anything that ever informs the public ACCURATELY of FACTS favorable to a candidate, is not merely not barred – it is required.

            Ted Stevens lost his Senate seat because of an FBI investigation that crashed and burned shortly after the election.
            Agents had altered and hidden evidence – where have we heard that before.

            1. The coming “election” has already been corrupted.

              Election day is “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November” and ONLY the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.

              Vote-By-Mail has unconstitutionally moved the election to a date as early as August 16, 2020.

              Of course, it is a POLL, and distinctly not and ELECTION, when people DO NOT present themselves at a polling place to be identified, certified and to cast a ballot.

              All Americans are provided notice of a date to allow them time to prepare – democrats have cancelled the election date and denied parties time to prepare; time to debate and conduct a campaign.

              If America had a Supreme Court, this unconstitutional corruption would be precluded with extreme prejudice.

              1. You can make your constitutionality argument to SCOTUS – though I likely agree with you – and would go farther.
                As I recall the constitution leaves matters related to elections to state legislatures and to congress. With no mention of governors or state courts, and state constitutions can not alter the federal constitution,

                But the more important point is that an election is SUPPOSED to be about who will go to the trouble to go to the polls on election day – whether it rains or there is pandemic or huricane or earthquake.

                Voting is NOT supposed to be easy.

                Nations with extremely high voter turn out – are unstable.

                In a perfect world the constitution would so constrain the govenrment that it would not matter at all whether the red candidate or the blue one was elected – neither could actually act differently than the other – without violating the constitution.

                Indivual liberty would be broadly understood and respected as our founders required and as Adam Smith noted leads to prosperity.

                Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.

        3. August 15, 2015 thru December 1, 2016.
          ________________________________

          “We will stop him.”

          – Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
          —————————————————-

          “[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”

          – Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok

  10. Mueller Aide Weissmann Calls On DOJ Attorneys Not To Help On Investigations

    Weissmann and his ilk are unprincipled pieces of sewer dwelling trash whose actions bring dishonour to themselves and the nation.

  11. Thank you very much, Professor Turley, for bringing these developments to our attention. Unfortunately, the mainstream media is doing nothing to inform the electorate of the ongoing efforts of Obama Administration to subvert justice. Many of us hope that the Durham investigation will continue apace and result in criminal prosecutions. Andrew Weissman is an embarrassment to the bar.

  12. Must be a bit of concern that one of the conspirators is giving up where the bodies are buried and who had their hands on the shovels. Hope Barr reveals all within the coming weeks, Americans deserve the truth not Schiff’s version.

  13. Weissmann et al are getting very nervous about Durham and it is a joy to see. Only bit players like Papadopolous and Stone go to prison as people that seem to be the real criminals (until we actually get to see some prosecutions) like Comey, Strzok, Page, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Biden, Rice and Clinesmith go on MSNBC.

    1. Comey teaching “ethics” in University. For image of hypocrisy see Comey’s face.

      Prior to Comey’s first visit to tell Trump about the Russia dossier, Comey absolutely positively knew that Shillary and the DNC purchased and in effect, authored the dossier. Comey met with Trump to tell Trump for the first time about the existence of the dossier, and OMITTED telling Trump who purchased it. Anderson Cooper (bless his disgusting putrid progressive heart this one time) had the temerity to ask Comey, “Did it not occur to you to notify Trump who bought the dossier?” Comey huffs then chuckles, surprised at Anderson’s big boy aggression to a fellow DNC operative. Then Comey quickly composes himself and says, “No, I didn’t think so…”

      Why should the POTUS know that his political opponents whom just lost the race had authored a bunch of lies about him, that DNC and MSM operatives had now funneled to the CIA and FBI?

  14. Did you ever wonder why they called the Hillary investigation “Mid-Year Exam” and the Trump-Russia Investigation “Crossfire Hurricane?”

Leave a Reply