Recently, I posted a criticism of Andrew Weissmann, one of the top prosecutors with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who ran a column with Professor Ryan Goodman encouraging Justice Department attorneys not to assist U.S. Attorney John Durham in his ongoing investigation (at least before the election) and dismissing the basis for the plea agreement reached with former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Goodman argues that I was unfair to him and Weissmann in my posting and I wanted to respond. I did include a longer quote from the column to be sure that their point was better understood in context in an updated posting. However, in my view, the defense of this column only highlights the inherent bias that the original posting sought to address. Rather than append this long discussion at the end of the original column, I felt it deserved its own posting and consideration by readers. The discussion below is a response not just to Goodman’s tweets but their column.
On Twitter, Professor Goodman makes four basic points which I make out into roughly six points. I would like to address each below. However, it is worth noting that only one point appears to be a claim of misrepresentation.
First, Goodman states that the posting was “seriously flawed” and “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)…” I will address the “pattern” referenced by Goodman below. However, Goodman states that the blog “falsely claims op-ed calls on DOJ lawyers ‘to undermine’ Durham investigation. He points out that “[o]ur 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.”
This appears to be the heart of Goodman’s claim of misrepresentation (indeed it appears the only claim). It is a rather curious and tautological point. Goodman simply restates his argument that what Durham is doing is improper and thus says that it cannot be viewed as “undermining” Durham’s investigation. Yes, I believe telling DOJ lawyers that they should refuse to assist in indictment or pleas is undermining Durham’s investigation, even if it is to do so for a few months. Such pleas or indictments are critical parts to an investigation or additional criminal cases. Durham, who even Democratic leaders have acknowledged is an apolitical and dedicated prosecutor, believes that this plea is needed to move forward on what could be a broader prosecution. Durham was delay by the pandemic but has moved to complete this long-standing investigation. For Durham, waiting for additional months is an example of an unnecessary example of justice delay being justice denied. He is allowed to move forward with his case and the cited “unwritten norm” of the authors is highly challengeable. Regardless of the merits, it hardly seems “seriously flawed” to characterize a call for Durham’s subordinates to stand down as undermining his investigation.
Goodman adds that this is not undermining the investigation because it violates their oath. Again, this just assumes what Weissmann and Goodman has said is demonstrably true. Specifically, they argue that the entering of this plea would violate long-standing policies but they are conclusory in describing the violation. Indeed, the premise of the column is that the investigations themselves are an effort of Attorney General Bill Barr to influence the election. Here is what they say is the violation:
“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.”
The first objection is that any action under two ongoing investigations would be influenced by politics. Again, the two authors simply assume that the investigations are political in design and purpose. Durham does not. There are no reports that Durham has been denied total control over his investigation, including when he enters pleas or indictments. The “action” here is a criminal plea that is based on false evidence being given to the federal court. While Weissmann has dismissed the basis for the indictment, most of us do not. It is a serious violation that warranted this action. Again, Weissmann and Goodman cannot just assert that this is political and then denounce others for misrepresenting their columns by objecting that it is not. My posting goes into detail why I believe Clinesmith commit this crime as does a separate column. Notably, this first point would seem to support the overall suggestion of the two authors that the investigations themselves are political, not just the timing of any indictments or pleas.
The reference to “unwritten norm” is equally curious. There is no hard and fast rule on which cases must be held back and which cases can proceed before an election. Weissmann and Goodman seem to think that anything dealing with the Russian investigation must be categorically halted in terms of public filings. Why? Well, they explain that:
“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.”
Many major cases have impacts on the political debate but this “unwritten norm” does not require them to be frozen in amber. The primary purpose of this norm is not to indict a candidate or bring charges against a campaign just before an election. This is an action against a former prosecutor, not a candidate or campaign. The Clinton campaign is four years in the past and it has not been implicated in any conspiracy with Clinesmith. There is no stated connection in this plea to Biden or his campaign. Moreover, the allegation against Clinesmith was already public and long discussed in the media after the Inspector General flagged the false statement. Barr testified in Congress that he does not view the Durham investigation as covered by any such rule that there is a good-faith basis for that view. Yet, Weissmann and Goodman believe that DOJ attorneys working with Durham should refuse to assist him in bringing this plea or other indictments to the court?
In their column, Weissmann and Goodman insist that the DOJ cannot issue any indictment, charge or report when it might give ”an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.” This case shows just how sweeping and disruptive that reasoning would be for any case that could be used to the advantage of some candidate or campaign in an election period. They wrote that three months to an election, a plea by a former FBI agent violates this policy despite the details of the allegations being public for a year and widely discussed. They cite to the fact that the Mueller waited to indict Russian military figures before the mid-term election.
“The special counsel’s office knew it could not indict Russian military intelligence officials for the 2016 hacking operation in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections. That’s right: The office could not indict the Russians — not only political candidates or aides. Such matters were so politically fraught that such an action by the special counsel might affect the election.”
I am a bit unclear on this point in term of dates, but I may be missing something. The midterm elections were held on November 6, 2018. On July 18, 2018, Mueller released charges against Russians. That was just over 118 days before the election. It is certainly beyond 90 days, but the indictments were released before the election. (By the way, it included the confirmation that Mueller could not find any evidence of a single Trump campaign official knowingly dealing or colluding with Russians in the operation. That was viewed as exonerating not incriminating evidence for the Administration.) More importantly, one could argue that the Russian indictment was not bound by this informal rule but it dealt with the elections. It was raising questions about a wide variety of groups and social media vehicles for influencing the election. That seems demonstrably different from the Clinesmith matter, which deals with the conduct of Justice Department officials.
Second, Goodman says that I misrepresented their column by saying that Clinesmith was charged for falsely stating Carter Page was not a CIA source to court, when Page was a source.
At the outset, it is worth noting that this point has nothing to do with the column that Goodman says was thoroughly misrepresented. He juxtaposes the indictment, not his column, to claim some error. Yet, he simply repeats the position of Weissmann that the Clinesmith charge is somehow flawed because the charge “never mentions Page’s status or whether lawyer knew it.” I am still at a loss about this point. Clinesmith pleaded guilty because he knowingly filed a false document that not only failed to tell the court that Page was an American intelligence asset or source but also claimed that he might be a Russian asset or source. Weissmann and Goodman can claim that this is some major inherent flaw but it is not a view shared by many.
Third, again unrelated to the column, Goodman objects that “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)
This is finally something that we can agree upon. I did compare the indictments and I did view Flynn’s indictment to be anemic. I will let you judge the comparison in the posting and column.
Fourth, again unrelated to the column, Goodman objects that “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.”
Again, this ignores the finding of the Justice Department itself that there was no investigation involving Flynn by the time of the interviews by the agents. I and others have addressed this point in prior writings. Goodman again just repeated the conclusory point as fact. 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. Comey himself reportedly told Obama before the interviews that the conversations with the Russians appeared entirely “legit.” The “rabbit hole” Goodman describes is actually the finding of the Justice Department:
“[T]he Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words, prepared to close because it had yielded an “ absence of any derogatory information.” … The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.”
Indeed, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates agreed that Comey “went rogue” in sending the agents to Flynn’s office — the same agents who later said that they did not believe Flynn intentionally lied.
Fifth, Goodman (again without context) repeatedly notes that the following people objected that I misrepresented their positions.
6/6 Notice a pattern.
These are indeed some of the experts who have expounded theories that I viewed as facially unsound. There is an insatiable appetite for theories of crimes committed by Trump or his family or campaign. The fact that such theories never panned out or were made the basis for impeachments or indictments is immaterial. They are popular and rarely supported. It then falls to others to shoulder the unpopular task of noting that these theories are unsupported by case law or radical extensions of the criminal code.
When confronted on the lack of legal support for the theories, the claim (as with Goodman) is that there must be some misrepresentation. Take Professor Rangappa. I criticized her for a call to impeach Barr and earlier claims that Comey’s notes (which he took from the FBI) are really no more than a collection of “personal recollections.” The suggested use of impeachment against Barr is absurd and sensational. It would convert policy disagreements into high crimes and misdemeanors. Rangappa’s dismissal of the importance of removing these notes was contradicted by the FBI itself which ultimately found what I stated in these columns: these are official FBI documents and contained potential classified information. Likewise, Eliason has objected to columns criticizing his various theories of indictable acts by Trump. including a bribery theory. I testified against such a unsupportable theory in the impeachment hearing and it was not adopted by the Democrats in their ultimate articles of impeachment. Notably, the popularity of such theories in the press is in direct contrast to their rejection in the courts. Without repeating all of these points, the reader can judge such disagreements on the merits by searching these names on the blog, which links to the underlying debates.
Finally, Goodman’s objections to my criticism was primarily focused on disagreements on the merits of the Clinesmith case, but conspicuously omitted one of the main points of the blog: that Weissmann has a conflict of interest in seeking to undermine the Durham investigation.
Once again, both Weissmann and Goodman have dismissed these investigations as political and there is a fair chance that a Biden Administration could well scuttle what is left of the investigation. However, whatever the future of these investigation, Weissmann has a professional interest in its findings. As I stated in my blog, Weissmann relied on some of the same material and sources for his investigation. While there is no evidence of any criminal or ethical violation by Weissmann, the findings of Durham could prove embarrassing to him. The Russian collusion claims appear to have been quickly and strongly contested by American intelligence, including the veracity and reliability of Christopher Steele. The findings of Durham could raise questions about the decisions made by the Mueller team and the failure to disclose information (as were raised in the Flynn case). His labeling of these investigations as political and unethical is troubling given the overlap with his own record in the review.
In the end, I was more concerned about the suggestion that I misrepresented the column by Weissmann and Goodman. I have include a longer quote from the column and linked to this more depth discussion. However, I stand by the criticism of Weissman and the call for DOJ attorneys to refuse to assist John Durham in such indictments or pleas.
I’ve argued on many occasions over the past 4 years that the DoJ and FBI need a specialized Election Integrity Rapid Response Office
(EIRRO), a standing group of crack investigators vetted for political neutrality, and suitably distant from political-appointee leadership, to handle cases pertaining to candidates and campaigns.
As part of this design, all federal election candidates would have to nominate their lead lawyer as official liaison to EIRRO, in order that
controversies (claims of misdeeds) get fully investigated rapidly, or misconduct rapidly halted short of indictment. The goal is to avoid having evidence of campaign/candidate misconduct suppressed from the voters until after the election.
This is exactly the opposite of what Weissman and Goodman are asking for — to suppress information about Crossfire Hurricane (and related investigations) until after Nov 3rd, so the voters cannot act upon it.
I wonder if they would agree to having a standing politically-neutral body working on short timelines?
Clinesmith’s hearing was this afternoon.
Katelyn Polantz (CNN):
“This was Kevin Clinesmith’s key quote today: ‘At the time I believed the information I was providing in the email was accurate. But I am agreeing that the information I inserted into the email was not originally there and I inserted that information.’”
Harry Litman (UCSD/UCLA law):
“Judge accepts Clinesmith plea even though when asked if what he wrote was false he answered “I believed it was accurate but I agree it wasn’t originally there and I inserted that information.” I don’t see how that’s enough to establish a factual basis for the plea.”
JT, to be fair, you regularly maintain Russian collusion was debunked in the ’16 election. It was not. Not prosecuted doesn’t equal debunked.
And you seem to be functioning from the standpoint that lack of action on Trump’s impeachment was related to lack of evidence…, when really, it was just a political decision by the repubs not to remove trump even after many repubs granted the charges were not false. It’s kind of a ‘my case is the best because trump says it is’ thing.
My guess is your legal groundwork around trump is shoddy, you know it, you know it’s taken extraordinarily tilted norms to justify them, and that history will not view them well.
And I’m beyond entertained in watching what you do to play down the trump surrogacy going forward. There’s not a lot of escape hatches available to you.
US of Bug: I think it was established that Pres. Trump put Pres. Zelinsky of Ukraine in a very awkward position, and went around his State Dept. with interventions from Rudy, Taylor, and Perry — very poor form. I think it also came out that the woman heading up the US Embassy in Kiev probably went over the line in her support for Hilary, looking the other way as some of her diplomatic staff engaged in electioneering on behalf of Hilary. That was like a factor in the President’s decision to can her.
Messy as it was, the Senators had to decide if the President’s conduct rose to the level of Impeachable Ofense and Removal from Office, overturning the voters’ 2016 decision. That ‘s a judgment call, and there is no real roadmap. They decided it was quite unsavory, but not impeachable.
Meanwhile, the Impeachment distracted the nation from the pandemic taking shape in China at a critical moment. Everything has a cost.
Marcy Wheeler:
“A reminder that Billy Barr said three times in his confirmation testimony it would be a crime if Trump floated a pardon for someone like Stone to lie in his testimony to protect Trump. SSCI CLEARLY shows that happened.”
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1296001754040020992
Meanwhile, Turley is silent about the SSCI report released yesterday.
And shame on all of the Republican Senators on the Intelligence Committee who knew what’s in the latest report and *still* voted against removing Trump. Tump is awful, but hopefully will be voted out in November. The rot in the GOP — supporting this corrupt President because they think it’s good for the party — is arguably worse for the country and will take longer to undo.
BTW, yesterday Trump endorsed a Republican House candidate, Laura Loomer, a Qanon nut and Islamophobe who “said Muslims shouldn’t have be allowed to hold public office and called Islam ‘a cancer on humanity.’ In a normal administration this would be a huge story but it will barely get mentioned.” (quoting Andrew Kaczynski).
The silence is deafening CTHD.
I agree with your damnation of the GOP Senate enablers who voted “no witnesses” and then No on impeachment, but I have to credit the chairman and members of this committee for allowing an honest report. Burr and Warner had seemed to work together fairly throughout and good to see that translated into the report. It gives a sliver of hope that non-partisan cooperation is still possible in Congress, if rare.
No wonder Weissman is so apoplectic about JT’s article.
“Will the Dam Break After Clinesmith’s Plea?”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/18/will_the_dam_break_after_clinesmiths_plea_143983.html
” * The Mueller team must have known Clinesmith’s actions were a problem. They didn’t just get rid him, they tried to shift the blame. That’s the meaning of an opaque footnote in their report, which said that the bureau, not the Mueller team, supervised “an FBI attorney” who worked for the special counsel. Hey, it’s them, not us!
* This CYA footnote, clever as it is, doesn’t mean the Mueller team was ignorant of Clinesmith’s fraud when they submitted the FISA warrant application. Nor does it absolve them of responsibility for failing to tell the court promptly when they suddenly “discovered” it was inaccurate.”
“Mean old levee, taught me to weep and moan, oh
Mean old levee, taught me to weep and moan”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwiTs60VoTM
—
“ First, Goodman states that the posting was “seriously flawed” and “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)…” I will address the “pattern” referenced by Goodman below. However, Goodman states that the blog “falsely claims op-ed calls on DOJ lawyers ‘to undermine’ Durham investigation. He points out that “[o]ur 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.”
This appears to be the heart of Goodman’s claim of misrepresentation (indeed it appears the only claim). It is a rather curious and tautological point. Goodman simply restates his argument that what Durham is doing is improper and thus says that it cannot be viewed as “undermining” Durham’s investigation.”
Again Turley still mischaracterizes what Goodman said. Note that Goodman never claimed Durham was actually doing something improper. Goodman said DOJ lawyers should refuse improper requests *IF* they violate oath to constitution and policy on actions that interfere in election. Turley wrongly claimed Goodman was advocating to undermine Durham. It’s a very stark difference. Turley is actually accusing Goodman of telling lawyers to directly undermine the investigation by dismissing the context of Goodman’s intent. He’s deliberately obfuscating his original accusation after being rightly called out on it. Goodman is reminding DOJ lawyers of what their responsibilities. Goodman had James Comey in mind when he made the statement. Turley twisted that into something else and is defending it with a convoluted reasoning only a lawyer can create.
“ Fourth, again unrelated to the column, Goodman objects that “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.”
Again, this ignores the finding of the Justice Department itself that there was no investigation involving Flynn by the time of the interviews by the agents. I and others have addressed this point in prior writings. ”
Turley completely avoided the basic fact that he still wrongly referenced the investigation as a “criminal investigation” instead of what it actually was, “a counterintelligence investigation”. There is a fundamental difference between the two and Turley being an intellectual should be able to recognize the important distinction. Instead he obfuscates by stating that there was no investigation. What’s the point of having an interview? An interview is part of an investigation. Turley is just obfuscating here.
JT, if you can’t bring yourself to use the word “collusion” to describe the conduct in the Republican Senate Report, here are some alternatives you can try: “complicit,” “conniving,” “cooperating,” “collaborating,” “scheming,” or “plotting, but it’s collusion by any other name.
If all the Democrats(?) would be impeached at the rate they wish no one would be around to do any state business.
Gee, imagine a quiet Democratic Party.
WASHINGTON — The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee made criminal referrals of Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince and Sam Clovis to federal prosecutors in 2019, passing along their suspicions that the men may have misled the committee during their testimony, an official familiar with the matter told NBC News.
The official confirmed reports in the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, which reported on the matter last week. A criminal referral to the Justice Department means Congress believes a matter warrants investigation for potential violation of the law.
The committee detailed its concerns in a letter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., in June 2019, the official said.
NBC News, today
Likely nothing will come of it.
It will be interesting to read Turley’s take on the just released Senate Report. He is on record claiming that there was “no Russian collusion.” I trust he will inform us what is his definition of “collusion” if he continues to insist there was no collusion between Manafort and Kilimnick. Out of a sense of loyalty, Turley has come to the defense of his old pal Barr, and by extension Trump, and his reputation as an impartial legal analyst regrettably will be tarnished. I hope it is not too late for him to disassociate himself from Trumpism.
Andrew Weissmann
________________
New York
New Jersey
New Nuremberg
We Democrats are in a pickle. We have used blacks for centuries as turds, pawns, fodder and talking points to gain power of them. Now we are learning that black gays call themselves the N word? So we now have to protect gay African Americans using the N word even if the N word is racist unless if Democrats use the N word to describe our largest voting block: dumb ass African Americans. Life was so much easier when we owned Blacks as slaves in the 1800s
REGARDING ABOVE:
This isn’t the commenter known as ‘Commit To Honest Discussion”. This is our creepy loser of a troll going on a rampage.
Even the conservative Washington Examiner is saying “Senate report on Russia blows a hole in Trump’s ‘hoax’ claims”
“A new, bipartisan report from the Senate Intelligence Committee confirms, unambiguously, that the Justice Department had good reason to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election. It also indicates that investigators were right to examine potential conspiracy with the Kremlin by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
“Again, this is a bipartisan report, not a partisan Democratic attack document. It is endorsed by Republican committee chairman (on leave), Richard Burr of North Carolina, by acting Chairman Marco Rubio of Florida, and by all other Republicans on the committee in addition to the committee Democrats. …”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/senate-report-on-russia-blows-a-hole-in-trumps-hoax-claims
David Corn: “Trump told Mueller he couldn’t recall ANY conversations w/ Stone re the WikiLeaks-Russia hack/leak op designed to hurt Clinton & help him. The Senate intel report says Trump directed Stone to seek out info from WikiLeaks & Stone reported to him directly. Trump lied to Mueller.”
https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/1295851845877927943
The tweet has an image of the quote from p. 236 of the report, which says “Thereafter, Trump directed Campaign officials to stay in touch with Roger Stone about future WikiLeaks activities regarding Clinton-related emails. Manafort in tum tasked Stone to contact Julian Assange, and Stone endeavored to reach Assange through several intermediaries. Stone reported back to senior Campaign officials and· associates, and to Trump directly, and provided advance informatio~ about another expected release relating to John Podesta, which he said would be damaging to Clinton. After WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails on October 7, Trump and the Campaign believed Stone had again acquired accurate, non-public information. The Committee could not reliably trace the provision of non-public information from WikiLeaks to Stone, and as a result. could not evaluate the full scope of Stone’s non-public knowledge of WikiLeaks’s activities.”
Mueller asked Trump:
“II. RUSSIAN HACKING/RUSSIAN EFFORTS USING SOCIAL MEDIA/WIKILEAKS
“… c. Are you aware of any communications during the campaign, directly or indirectly, between Roger Stone, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, or Rick Gates and (a) WikiLeaks, (b) Julian Assange, (c) other representatives of WikiLeaks, (d) Guccifer 2.0, (e) representatives of Guccifer 2.0, or (f) representatives of DCLeaks? If yes, describe who provided you with this information, when you learned of the communications, and what you know about those communications.”
Trump’s answer:
“I do not recall being aware during the campaign of any communications between the individuals named in Question II (c) and anyone I understood to be a representative of WikiLeaks or any of the other individuals or entities referred to in the question.”
Is Trump’s memory so faulty? Or was he lying to Mueller under penalty of perjury?
That’s an awfully significant thing to not recall. Of course, Trump does seem to be going senile, and memory loss is common.
Trump told Mueller he couldn’t recall ANY conversations w/ Stone re the WikiLeaks-Russia hack/leak op designed to hurt Clinton & help him.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Mueller told Congress that he could not recall his conversation with Trump the day before Mueller’s appointment as Special Counsel was announced.
So Mueller was snuck into the Oval Office, after he had been offered the job as SC, for a secret meeting with the President of the United States and he testifies to Congress that he has no memory of what was discussed.
“Mueller told Congress …”
jinn, if you want to discuss what he told Congress, you should quote him, just like I quoted Corn and quoted Mueller’s question to Trump and quoted Trump’s response. If you think that anyone is going to take your word for anything, you’re mistaken.
Antifa/BLM are being caught on tape, and will be the downfall of the DNC election goals
BREAKING!
Fox News:
***** Manhunt underway for attacker in Portland truck assault: police *****
Police say they have probable cause for his arrest
Portland police on Tuesday identified a suspect in Sunday night’s attack on a truck driver who was seen on video being pulled from the vehicle and violently beaten.
The Portland Police Bureau is on the hunt for Marquise Love, who also goes by the name “Keese Love,” for his alleged involvement in the vicious assault that was caught on video and circulated on social media.
Officials said in a press release they have made several attempts to reach 25-year-old Love, but have so far been unsuccessful. They have said they have probable cause for his arrest.
“The Portland Police Bureau is taking this assault and other incidents of violence extremely seriously,” said Chief Chuck Lovell in a statement provided with the press release. “Our Detectives continue to investigate this assault as well as other acts of violence directed toward protestors, but we need more than just videos from social media. In order to hold individuals responsible for criminal acts, we need the public to provide information and refrain from tampering with evidence.”
“Investigators learned that the victim may have been trying to help a transgender female who had some of her things stolen in the area of Southwest Taylor and 4th Ave, the location where this incident began,” police said late Monday.
Investigators said they are hoping to speak with the transgender woman.
Thanks Anonymous.
Truly I was wrong. The Democrats are the loser party and they are the Marxists of our current dystopia
But when are people going to come back to my nail salon to do their nails!!!??! I can’t continue to troll for peanuts!!!!
Are you jealous Seth?
REGARDING ABOVE:
This isn’t Seth Warner but our creepy loser troll again. He’s having a major hissy fit today.
REGARDING ABOVE:
This is Seth Warner our creepy loser troll again. I’m having a major hissy fit today. It’s time for a treat. Think of it as candy.
“For extreme diseases, extreme methods of cure, as to restriction, are most suitable.”
– Hippocrates
___________
The co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America are in full panic mode committing acts of last resort and desperation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious criminal act 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.
The r uling class of the classless socialist society.
“Quaerendo Invenietis” thank you Turley
Is this a communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) bot or algorithm using my nom de plume?
The co-conspirators in the Obama Coup D’etat in America really are in full panic mode, committing acts of last resort and desperation.
Either this identity theft is completely doltish or I have hit a nerve.
They’re even afraid of a “kook,” George.
I must say, thank you. I’m honored. I thought no one read.
Are these my 15 minutes of fame?