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.
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.
Nice round up.
Granted, this particular forum may not be the ideal place to say this, but: Mr. Weissmann is proof that 99.99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
Sweet!
Lawyers are generally acting as mercenaries. Just as are most bureaucrats. Just mercenaries. Not every one, just most.
Americans should understand that a mercenary just acts for pay. They are above things like patriotism and tribalism and religious loyalties. These are all dispensible social affiliations for a mercenary.
Americans however are taught that money is the supreme value, in so many ways, if not explicitly, then implicitly.
And so people with strong patriotism (nationalism) and tribal affiliations and religious loyalties are considered, inherently, second class lower tier citizens
‘
Because our “elites’ of politics and mass media are all supremely, obviously, ostentatiously, not-loyal to any nation, tribe, nor religion.
Hence when we adore them, we worship, selfishness. We celebrate those who climb to the heights of money, and not much else
We do not value the values of ancient times nor the normal aspects of social identity, that are even now still much cherished worldwide.,
We have become a supremely selfish and self-defeating population ever more focused on ease and pleasure and money.
We get what we worship– selfish, money-climbing, virtue-free sociopaths
and lawyers just tend to work, like other mercenaries, for those who pay the bills
in history, there have been a lot of successful mercenary armies
but there have also been successful patriotic armies of the people. it’s not clear how this will turn out
human agency matters
Indeed. Very well put. While there are certainly some “good apples’ in the mix — as in any occupation, we rarely get to hear of them. It’s simply not sexy enough to spend air time on their stories. I had not considered the socially-unmoored, gun-for-hire analogy. Yes, they are expected to be generally ethical in their dealings with the court and their clients, but you’re right that “ethicality” does not require any of the affiliations you listed. Mercenaries are not bound to stay on the field of battle — as are citizen armies — once the tide of battle clearly turns negative. They have no investment in the cause of the war, and so their allegiance waxes and wanes like the tides.
Regarding worship: It is impossible to serve two masters. Love the one and hate the other is a very simple way to suggest a profound truth. Much of your post touches on the things that people put their treasures (time, resources, devotion) into, which clearly indicates where their hearts lie.
Nicely done, Mr. Kurtz. 🙂
I remember when I was a child that my teacher would tell us stories about the great men of our nation.
From a simple story that she told us about George Washington and an axe and a cherry tree, I learned that truth is an absolute.
And that same teacher taught us, in that school in the Midwest, that two things must be present in order for our democracy to survive.
The truth must always prevail over lies.
Compromise ensures that a decision has been agreed upon by all.
There is only one group that still believes in these principles.
My only son was stationed at Ft. Lewis in Takoma, Washington. President Trump was threatening to send in military forces to take care of the rioting mob that eventually turned vicious and then murderous.
And that, too, is the truth.
I saw the ones that had originally founded CHAZ, children masquerading as protestors replaced by black facemasks and guns, real guns. And I thought, what if the black facemasks…
What if…They are mercenaries?
What if… My son is sent to stop this uprising? What if….The black facemasks shoot?
What if….
My son finally called me. I told him why I worried. I told him that we may be in another Civil War. I told him I loved him and He said,
“Mom, soldiers do not harm Americans.
We will always protect Americans.”
And that, too, is the Truth.
Long ago, William Shakespeare wrote of lawyers in Henry VI,
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Your analysis only identified a symptom but not the cause of the continuing destruction of our democracy.
There is now another Civil War.
The blame is not with the lawyers.
The blame is within ourselves.
We remain silent as lies prevail.
And that, too, is the Truth.
While I agree with you it would seem that this guy Weissman has put his education and lawyering skills to usage as an expression of his pretty warped personality. His twisting of the laws to fit his emotional needs to bully and attack normal Americans like the people caught up in his Enron crusade goes far beyond normal zeal. Like the Star Chamber inquisitors in old Spain he prosecutes the innocent along with the guilty without any empathy or resorvation. He appears to be the personification of evil incarnate. Sound a bit over the top? Sure until you and your family are destroyed and your freedom taken away on his whims and bureaucratic career ladder climbing. He knew very well that Trump had nothing to do with Russians but like is his way he believed himself to be the avenging angel of “Justice” so anything was permissible. Ego and hubris are a toxic mix and this chump has it in spades. He even urges sworn gov’t employees to violate their oaths of office by creating “resistance” to a lawful investigation in which he may or may not be indicted. Self interest is a strong drug and this creep in addicted.
Ryan Goodman (NYU law prof. who co-authored the op-ed with Weissmann that Turley quoted / mischaracterized) has posted a Twitter thread in response this morning:
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1295373224474226688
The following quotes his response for those too lazy to click on the link to read it, though the thread has relevant images, so better to read it there:
_______________________________________________________
@JonathanTurley has a seriously flawed blog post trying to criticize @AWeissmann_ and me.
Turley badly misrepresents what we said, what Justice Dept charged, and more…
This is a pattern for Turley (see final tweet in this thread for that pattern)…
2. On left: [see Twitter thread for the images]
Turley falsely claims op-ed calls on DOJ lawyers “to undermine” Durham investigation
On right: [see Twitter thread for the images]
Our op-ed: DOJ lawyers should refuse IMPROPER requests if VIOLATE oath to Constitution and policy on actions that interfere in election; plus Durham CAN indict after 11/3
3. On left: [see Twitter thread for the images]
Turley: FBI lawyer charged for falsely stating Carter Page was not a CIA source to court, when Page was a source.
On right: [see Twitter thread for the images]
The charge: Knowingly altering a document to FBI supervisor by adding words (charge never mentions Page’s status or whether lawyer knew it).
4. An aside: as Turley tries to amplify Clinesmith’s charge, compare how he described Flynn’s charge for lying to FBI (and admitting being unregistered foreign agent):
“pretty anemic” (Fox News 12/13/18)
“rather anemic crime that borders on the pathetic” (Fox News 12/18/18)
5. In his blog, Turley goes down a familiar rabbit hole of disinformation.
He writes, at length, that Flynn false statement was not material in reference to CRIMINAL investigation, but never mentions key in Flynn false statement case was ongoing COUNTERINTELLIGENCE investigation
6/6 Notice a pattern.
@AshaRangappa_
@eliehonig
@ElieNYC
@harrylitman
@PreetBharara
@RDEliason
@steve_vladeck
@waltshaub
______________________________END quote__
Recall that Turley has previously mischaracterized statements/arguments made by others in that list.
And calls him out for exactly what you correctly reported yesterday and which JT corruptly or stupidly still has not corrected: The statement in op-ed – anyone can read it – did not recommend DOJ lawyers stonewalling Durham, but honoring their non-partsian tradition of not engaging in politically significant efforts in election season. In other words, just as Strzock, Comey, and McCabe protected Trump by not revealing the investigation into his campaign in 2016.
This is fog of war, and you guys are just pumping the bellows.
The reality is, Weissman is advocating obstruction of justice.
Of course you applaud the traitor Weissman for muddying the waters.
The funny thing is, these people do not represent your interests. And yet you identify with this coalition of scoundrels so closely for whatever reason, you carry their water. How naive and how foolish. I pray for you my fellow American who are so deceived by the mysterious cunning of the global financial plutocracy. You make me mad, but if you are down here in the big middle like me, as you surely are or you would not be typing here at all, I pray for you that you awaken before the forces you applaud take your own very scalps.
Here’s a poor dumb cracker ran off the road by BLM, dragged from his lousy old pickup, sitting by quietly while they destroy it. And for his submission to the crime, they rewarded him by knocking him cold and unconscious and probably brain damaged to boot. This is who is victimized by BLM, an innocent person, who is unlucky enough to be white and living in a big city infested by BLM riot squads. Hope that one day that is not you.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6181881865001#sp=show-clips
sorry i forgot the link
Kurtz, you keep saying things like “Weissman is advocating obstruction of justice,” but not providing any evidence for it.
“The reality is”: you’re spouting an evidenceless opinion, not stating a fact. Do you have any actual evidence?
You’re a troll. I don’t bow to your demands. Go demand them of someone who takes you seriously. You are here to obfuscate and pump out a lot of foggy text. You are failing badly. I elaborated on your one stupid remark about Turley today because it happens to be on my agenda. Otherwise, your prattling is inconsequential to me
Mr. K,
She’s a psychotic Bolshevik, in full panic mode, with her back against the wall.
The Beast that has her back pinned against the wall is the burgeoning potential of the John Durham inquiry which, if pursued, will place all of their necks in guillotines.
________
“For extreme diseases, extreme methods of cure, as to restriction, are most suitable.”
– Hippocrates
___________
For those of you in Rio Linda, “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are desperate.
Weisman is doing precisely the same thing that he called Obstruction when Trump did it.
Weisman is not obstructing justice – neither was Trump.
But you can not beleive Trump was and Weisman is not without being immorally hypocritical.
When did Trump call for non-cooperation by DOJ officials in the Mueller investigation? Please cite sources.
I did not say that he did.
But Weisman said he did in the Mueller Report and called that Obstruction of Justice.
“but honoring their non-partsian tradition of not engaging in politically significant efforts in election season”.
Is Durham investigating Biden ?
What is politically significant here ?
Oh, that the FBI/DOJ LIED about Trump.
I have no problems with Durham continuing this straight to election day.
BTW Klinesmith plead guilty – this is not a leak. not a mere indictment.
If it has any political impact it is the political impact of truth.
Next, Strzok etc – just like Durham are obligated to keep their investigation secret until the indict or persuade someone to plead.
That was not possible with the Clinton investigation – as the crime was made public before the investigation started.
While the FBI did leak like a seive throughout the “midyear exam” it was not possible to keep the misconduct of clinton secret amoung other reasons because it was misconduct in government – and there is a public right to know regarding the actions of government – there is not reqarding those of private individuals or even a presidential campaign
Comey made public the reopening of the Clinton investigation based on Weiner’s laptop 2 weeks before the vote. No one has suggested keeping the spring investigation quiet. The Trump campaign investigation, on going during the period when Hillary’s later investigation was made public, was kept quiet by all the supposed Deep State plotters, including Comey who had the authority – obviously – to break what was a policy, not a binding law.
“Comey made public the reopening of the Clinton investigation based on Weiner’s laptop 2 weeks before the vote.”
False,
Comey PRIVATELY informed the Senate IC as he was obligated to.
Regardless Weiner’s laptop and the 100’s of thousands of clinton’s emails on it was public because Anthony Weiner perved a 13 year old and because Huma Abedin backed up Clinton’s email account onto that laptop.
You would have to br brean dead to know the FBI was not going to be involved.
“No one has suggested keeping the spring investigation quiet.”
It should have been, and would have been had Clinton not hid what she was doing from everyone such that it was uncovered by an FOIA request.
” The Trump campaign investigation, on going during the period when Hillary’s later investigation was made public, was kept quiet by all the supposed Deep State plotters, including Comey who had the authority – obviously – to break what was a policy, not a binding law.”
This is not about Policy – again Comey did not make the clinton investigation public. Clinton and her alcolytes PUBLIC misconduct did that.
Comey PRIVATELY did as he was obligated to.
It is not Political investigations that the FBI is required to keep quiet, it is ALL investigations.
Prosecutors speak throught indictments and trials.
Not leaks and defamining those they are investigating publicly.
Finally this claim that Comey effected the election is nonsense.
Clinton’s lowest Polls in the weeks before the elect came the day BEFORE Comey sent his letter.
And her poll numbers rose every day from then until the election.
Finally – Clinton was your candidate. If you do not want a candidate who is a crook – do not nominate one.
I will give you a far better reason that the FBI kept the Trump investigation secret.
Because they would be in deep shit if people found out – as they have been .
These “deep staters” were not protecting Trump – they were protecting themselves.
Nor warning Trump that they felt members of His campaign were working with the Russians.
Oh wait, THAT’s more evidence of their corruption. Or…but it’s ok because they knew that they were not working with the Russians just set up by the likes of Halper and Misfud.But wait that’s MORE evidence of their corruption.
Help where do we stop so it looks like Trump is the bad guy,I keep forgetting?
Well, it’s kind of obvious that the crooked creeps were doing everything shabby thing they could cook up to overturn an election, looking the other way when the witch’s vices turned up. So we’ll give your comment the boot.
I have problems with Turley – his is a liberal in the old meaning of the word and has a great deal of difficulty grasping that there are few liberals left. He gives far too much benefit of the doubt to those on the left who are illiberal – though SLOWLY he is coming arround – as a consequence of their thoroughly reprehensible behavior.
As to your coauthor:
It is undisputed that Klinesmith too a document provided by CIA and altered it to radically change its meaning, and then presented that as true to the FISA court.
There is no innocent means to do that.
Trying to defend that conduct is lawless and immoral.
I have a great interest in the weisman editorial – because of what it says about Weisman. And what it says is that he is immoral
Your defense of Weisman and his co-author – indicates you are either clueless or immoral.
You are certainly not “committed to Honest Discussion”
Until you accept that:
Klinesmith altered a document – evidence, in a way that radically changes its meaning and presented it to the court as if that modified version what the original expression of the CIA. And then swore that the Warrant was true and correct.
There is no world in which that is not criminal.
Commit, I don’t believe you.
Weissmann is just a very transparent example of the partisan illness that pervades much of the IC at the upper levels. Obama was seemingly able to turn all the 3 letter agencies into his private army in short order – the FBI, FISA Court, CIA, IRS, and to a lesser degree the NSA all willingly supported clearly partisan activities and then when discovered, cover for his administration and to protect themselves. The political takeover of the U.S. Government by DNC functionaries is almost complete – you will note the Democrats are now supporting attacks on the local police departments with threats of pulling funding and disbanding, them, only to be “Replaced” by “Their” people or BLM / Antifa Marxist Thugs. We have seen this same sort of threats and actions used in the past against the Military, and IC – which now appear to be largely controlled by partisan democrats.
It’s vitally important to remember the real distinction between America’s model of government and despotic regimes. American police officers, military and intelligence/national security personnel have one thing in common – each government servant swears supreme (and superseding) loyalty to a constitution that protects individual liberties through constitutional due process – governments like Russia do not.
Since the FISA and FISA Court were created in the 1970’s (designed to restrain and minimize unconstitutional searches by presidents after Watergate and the Frank Church Committee Reports), American officials have started behaving like a Cold War Stasi (communist secret police). Maybe we need to start practicing American style justice instead of becoming more like despotic regimes?
The Article VI oath of office may be the greatest check & balance created by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, it empowers subordinate government officials (insiders) to refuse illegal orders by disloyal supervisors. The Nuremberg Trials, that prosecuted Nazis after WWII, created a legal precedent for subordinates NOT to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders. If the American system operated properly, subordinates like Edward Snowden or John Kiriakou would be able to challenge these unconstitutional orders in federal court. Snowden was grounded in Russia by the U.S. government. Kiriakou served prison time for refusing to torture. Today we essentially have an unAmerican J. Edgar Hoover style “Stasi” at the local, state and federal levels – closer to a Cold War era Stasi (Communist model) than to James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay’s American model. If America is going to behave like Russia why are we spending tax dollars investigating it? Why aren’t we giving people like Snowden and Kiriakou fair trials? It’s a joke to many of us.
Ashcroft, you may not be aware but I saw Kiriakou on tv not long ago laughing at one supposed “whistleblowers” who tormented Trump. Weissman is just the most recent one of many supposed “whistleblowers” who are nothing more than insubordinate malingerers and saboteurs. but I get it, Weissman is whom you’re trying to valorize.
Kiriakou stood up for something that helps us all, when he leaked the torture things.
Snowden stood up for somethign that helps us all, when he leaked solid proof of the unconstitutional spying by NSA
the supposed “whistleblower” who struck a blow at trump was only leaking for the gain that he knew full well Democrat politicians would pay to him when his little stunt played out. This was narrow partisan gain and over a trifle of a supposed offense that amounted to nothing .Certainly not comparable at all to Kiriakou or Snowden
Why don’t you save this BS for people who dont know anything about the people you refer to, who may be taken in by your lofty nonsense.,
Anyhow, “principles” are laudable but are embodied in constitutional orders, chains of command, and rules. People can’t just buck the orders when they don’t like them or we will end up with anarchy. We know anarchy is what’s being foisted upon us now, all because Orange Man Bad. Weissman now is advocating his own version of anarchy
So. Snowden and Kiriakou are real heroes and genuine socially valuable whistleblowers. But whatever scoundrels you suggest today are so laudable such as Weissman, who is openly advocating obstruction of justice, no, he is no hero to us all, he is just a partisan of his narrow political interests.
To put Weissman in the same sentence with Snowden or Kiriakou is preposterous. You should be ashamed. Go wash your mouth out with soap
The Obama Coup D’etat co-conspirators are in FULL PANIC MODE and DO NOT want John Durham to go any further.
Kamala Harris, being ineligible for vice president because her parents were not citizens, could be a real problem if it can’t be contained in the closet with the rest of her skeletons.
Cheating is never easy.
___________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,
Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,
Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,
Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,
Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
Joe Biden, James E. Boasberg et al.
It is clear thatFlynn did not lie to the two FBI guys.
NEW ZEALAND DELAYS ELECTION AFTER VIRUS OUTBREAK IN AUCKLAND
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has chosen to delay New Zealand’s national elections by four weeks as the country deals with a new coronavirus outbreak in its largest city Auckland
By NICK PERRY Associated Press – August 16, 2020, 6:30 PM
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern on Monday chose to delay New Zealand’s national elections by four weeks as the country deals with a new coronavirus outbreak in its largest city, Auckland. The election had been scheduled for Sept. 19 but will now be held on Oct. 17. Under New Zealand law, Ardern had the option of delaying the election for up to about two months. Opposition parties had been requesting a delay after a virus outbreak in Auckland last week prompted the government to put the city into a two-week lockdown and halted election campaigning.
To believe Flynn lied we have to trust the revisions that Stzrok, Page and 7th floor Andy made to Pientka’s 302. That the dog ate. I suspect that Flynn DID trust them–based on his respect for feebs and his conflicted attorneys. His allocution was the result. Thank God Sidney showed him who they really are.
Mr. Turley, tell us non-lawyers: Is Weissman obstructing justice?
According tot he definition of Obstruction Wwisman used in “The Mueller report” absolutely!
According to the actual law – no.
Weisman has just shredded and burned 300 pages of the Mueller report.
It looks like a case of obstruction of justice by Weissman and his inability to handle the truth.