Barr’s Appointment Of Special Counsel Leaves Biden and Democrats In A Muddle

Below is my column in USA Today on the implications of the appointment of U.S. Attorney John Durham as a Special Counsel.  House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff and other Democrats have already denounced the move and called for the next Attorney General to consider rescinding the appointment.  While Schiff previously called for legislation to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller to complete his work without interference from the Attorney General, he ramped up the rhetoric against Durham as leading a “politically motivated investigation.” Durham was previously praised by Democrats and Republicans alike as an independent, apolitical, and honest prosecutor.  After insisting that the public has a right to see what has been uncovered over years of investigation by Mueller, they are now pushing to end the Durham investigation and forestall any final public report.

Here is the column:

Attorney General Bill Barr made two important evidentiary decisions yesterday that delivered body blows to both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden. First, Barr declared that the Justice Department has not found evidence of systemic fraud in the election. Second, he declared that there was sufficient evidence to appoint United States Attorney John Durham as a Special Counsel on the origins of the Russia probe. The move confirmed that, in a chaotic and spinning political galaxy, Bill Barr remains the one fixed and immovable object.

By appointing Durham as a Special Counsel, Barr contradicted news reports before the election that Durham was frustrated and found nothing of significance despite Barr’s pressure. Some of us expressed doubts over those reports since Durham asked for this investigation to be upgraded to a criminal matter, secured the criminal plea of former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, and asked recently for over a thousand pages of classified intelligence material.

Under the Justice Department regulations, Barr had to find (and Durham apparently agreed) that there is need for additional criminal investigation and “[t]hat investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances.” He must also find the appointment in the public interest.

Notably, the investigation of Clinesmith is effectively completed. So, what is the criminal investigation and what is the conflict?

Developing conflicts

Presumably, the conflict is not in the current administration since it would have required an earlier appointment. The conflict would seem to be found in the upcoming Biden administration.

Some conflicts developing seem obvious as Biden turns to a host of former Obama officials for positions, including the possible selection of Sally Yates as Attorney General. Yates was directly involved in the Russian investigation and signed off on the controversial surveillance of Trump associate Carter Page. She now says that she would never have signed the application if she knew what she knows today.

Durham is now authorized to investigate anyone who may have “violated the law in connection with the intelligence, counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns, individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.” The list of the names of people falling within that mandate is a who’s who of Washington from Hillary Clinton to James Comey to . . . yes . . . Joe Biden.

Bizarrely, reports have claimed that Trump was irate at the move as a “smokescreen” to delay the release of the report. That ignores not just the legal but political significance of the action. From a political perspective, the move is so elegantly lethal that it would make Machiavelli green with envy.

Over the last few months, Democrats appeared to be laying the foundation to scuttle the Durham investigation as well as any investigation into the Hunter Biden influence peddling scheme. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) denounced the Durham investigation as “tainted” and “political.” On the campaign trail, Biden himself dismissed the “investigation of the investigators.” Over in the Senate, Democrats joined in the mantra with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and others denouncing the continued investigations.

By converting Durham into a special counsel, Barr makes it harder to fire him. It is not uncommon for presidents to replace all U.S. Attorneys with political allies. Durham however is now a Special Counsel and his replacement or the termination of his investigation would be viewed as an obstructive act. Indeed, when Trump even suggested such a course of action, he was accused of obstruction by a host of Democratic politicians and legal experts.

The appointment also makes a public report more likely. While Durham already secured a conviction, prosecutors do not ordinarily prepare reports. Special counsels do.  Moreover, with the Mueller report, virtually every Democratic leader demanded that the report be released with no or few redactions. The Trump administration waived most executive privileges and released most of the report except for grand jury information. Even that was not enough for figures like Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have said, and I’ll say again, no thank you, Mr. Attorney General, we do not need your interpretation, show us the report and we can draw our own conclusions.” House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler demanded the release of the “full and complete Mueller report, without redactions, as well as access to the underlying evidence.” The Durham appointment will now force Democrats to answer why they do not support the same public release of the report so that voters can “draw our own conclusions.”

Complicating Sally Yates’ nomination

The move also complicates the nomination of Sally Yates, who is widely cited as a front-runner for the position of Attorney General. Yates would be placed in an even more precarious position than Jeff Sessions who recused himself to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest at the state of the Trump administration. Yates has a clear and obvious conflict. She played a role in the earlier Russian investigation. That investigation was based in part on the “Steele dossier,” a report by a former British spy which has been shown to be unreliable and flawed. American intelligence warned that Steele’s main source was a likely Russian agent and the dossier may have been used for Russian disinformation. While the Clinton campaign repeatedly denied funding the dossier during the election, reporters later showed that it lied after finding a money trail through Clinton’s campaign legal counsel. Most recently, it was disclosed that President Obama was briefed on an American intelligence report that Clinton had ordered the creation of a Russian collusion story to take pressure off her own scandal involving her private server. Yates testified recently that she has no recollection of these warnings and does not recall knowing about the funding of the Steele dossier.

Yates would have no choice but to recuse herself in dealing with the Durham investigation. However, if the Biden administration used her designated deputy to scuttle the investigation or the report, the Biden administration will have done what Trump never actually did. All of those columns and speeches contorting the language of the obstruction statute would come back to haunt the Democrats.

It is, to use the words of fired Special Agent Peter Strzok, the ultimate “insurance policy” that Durham will be allowed to complete and release the facts of his investigation. Worse yet, the Democrats themselves made the case for him to do so.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

212 thoughts on “Barr’s Appointment Of Special Counsel Leaves Biden and Democrats In A Muddle”

  1. Now, maybe (god is it even possible) these a-holes will have to eat their own dog food. Schiff, Pelosi, Brennan, Yates, Rice, Biden, Clapper, Mueller, McCabe, Hillary…bend over…

  2. “However, if the Biden administration used her designated deputy to scuttle the investigation or the report, the Biden administration will have done what Trump never actually did. All of those columns and speeches contorting the language of the obstruction statute would come back to haunt the Democrats.”

    Unfortunately not as the media will simply run cover for the Dems–after all, this is the journalism of “moral clarity”. Either it just won’t be covered (memory holed) or it will be justified as this is different, nothing to see here, move on (doublespeak, doublethink). For those firmly ensconced in the alternative reality echo chamber universe known as CNN and MSDNC et al, the blatant hypocrisy and double standards simply won’t register and therefore won’t exist.

    We no longer have to open the pages of Orwell’s 1984–we are living it right now.

    1. Biden: We have put together the biggest voter fraud organisation…
      Media: …

      Trump: There was voter fraud perpetuated…
      Media: Conspiracy theory!!!

      1. “We have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.”

        – Joe Biden, October 24, 2020

    2. ‘Pelosi is who we always thought she was.

      She let Americans suffer for months without relief to win an election.’

      Direct quote from PELOSI on why she is willing to accept this bill: “A new president and a vaccine.”

      @jakesherman

      May the Joe Biden admin fail spectacularly, because they deserve to be exposed as the corrupt, dishonest, owned-by-China anti-American sellouts they actually are.

      1. How nice to know that you want Americans harmed just because you dislike Biden. What a patriot you are.

        1. I repeat:

          Direct quote from PELOSI on why she is willing to accept this bill: “A new president and a vaccine.”

          You were saying something about Americans “being harmed” just because you hate….Trump? Look no further than the Democrat leadership, the media, and the rest of the evil cabal.

        2. It seems you need to hear the TRUTH again:

          ‘Pelosi is who we always thought she was.

          She let Americans suffer for months without relief to win an election.’

        3. The country was harmed for the past four years by Democrats, their media, Hollywood, Antifa, BLM, etc all because they lost an election and they hate Trump. They set loose their brownshirts to riot and destroy minority and black owned businesses in cities all across the country just because they did not get their way and because they hate Trump. Payback is a beeyotch, ain’t it?

          Biden is an illegitimate president. They stole the election. No one believes Joe Biden won this election fair and square. No one. Resist! #Not My President.

          You gave us four years of this crap. You now reap what you sowed. We will NOT capitualte and accept Joe Biden as a legitimate president. Not on your life. Get used to is as YOUR new reality just like we put up with for the past four years.

  3. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

    – Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961
    _________________________________

    Durham is bad for Biden.

    Durham is good for Commie-Lie Ho-riss.

    Commie-Lie couldn’t attract a dollar for her campaign.

    Commie-Lie couldn’t attract a vote for her candidacy.

    But, after Biden is taken down by Durham, Commie-Lie will be ensconced in the presidency by the Deep Deep State.

    After all, the ineligible, barren woman rented a nice white family for this election.
    _______________________________________________________________

    Oh, Hells no!

    There damn sure was no vote corruption or election tampering.

  4. If Durham actually does his job correctly the word hypocrites will be the operative word describing the Democrat Party.

  5. But the Russians…..

    2020 Election Fraud vs. 2016 Russia Collusion
    – Trevor Thomas

    Just two days after Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the race for President of the United States, the Washington Post ran a piece with the headline, “Moscow had contacts with Trump team during campaign, Russian diplomat says:”

    Russian government officials conferred with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, a disclosure that could reopen scrutiny of the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton.

    Likewise, on the same day, Reuters reported the same story and added,

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation opened a preliminary inquiry in recent months into allegations that Trump or his associates might have had questionable dealings with Russian people or businesses, but found no evidence to warrant opening a full investigation, according to sources familiar with the matter. The agency has not publicly discussed the probe.

    Of course, we now know that this was the beginnings of the foolish Trump-Russia-collusion narrative that was meant to end the Donald Trump presidency. Despite little more to go on than a fake dossier, liberal delusions, and a hatred of the truth (this is why they hate Trump and his supporters), for years the media shamelessly and falsely attempted to link Trump to the Russians. Gallons of ink, countless hours of television reports, millions of words, and a mountain of webpages were devoted to this evil effort.

    In spite of all of this, along with an unnecessary Special Counsel investigation, Trump was exonerated. As Peter Van Buren put it,

    Robert Mueller did not charge any Americans with collusion or criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. The special counsel also considered whether members of the Trump campaign “coordinated,” a much lower standard defined as an “agreement, tacit or express,” with Russian election interference activities. They did not.

    Everything – everything — else we have been told since the summer of 2016 falls, depending on your conscience and view of humanity, into the realm of lies, falsehoods, propaganda, exaggerations, political manipulation, stupid reporting, fake news, bad judgment, simple bull, or, in the best light, hasty conclusions.

    Undeterred by the facts, many in the media — and thus, many like-minded Americans — still insist that Trump-Russia collusion was a real thing. Wikipedia even has an extremely lengthy page devoted to the supposed “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential election. Hoping to capitalize on this delusion, Democrats even perpetrated a baseless impeachment of President Trump.

    Fast-forward to the fall of 2020 and Trump’s re-election bid. In one of the strangest and closest elections in U.S. history, and despite plenty of evidence of election fraud (much of it chronicled on my site) — which could potentially alter the results of a presidential election (an unprecedented occurrence) — the media has largely pretended that the fraud is nonexistent.

    Thus, they want Trump and his 70+ million supporters to shut up and go home. CBS’s Major Garrett well epitomizes the mainstream media’s views on this matter:

    It goes against our history, it goes against good governance, and the longer it goes, the deeper it will create divisions in this country about what actually happened in this election, and the president and the Republicans who stand with him will have to bear the responsibility for whatever comes from that… Every sensible Republican on Capitol Hill knows that in his or her heart of hearts. And their mute testament and loyalty to the President will only serve to encourage him to resist was inevitable, the transition of power, and history will judge them harshly.

    1. CommitToHysteriaAndIncoherence

      Fine ad hominem.

      Why so frantic?

      Joke and Da Unelectable Ineligible Ho won, right?

      I’d be on the beach in Tahiti; drinking Maitais and watching bikinis.

      Has the smoking gun video of after-hours, Georgian, ballot suitcases gotcha?
      _____________________________________________________________

      “But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;…”

  6. Turley continues to frame his posts as a personal attorney for the Trump administration, so the question has been asked in the past but is just as relevant today, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last”

  7. One question that has to be answered is whether Jonathan Turley, as one of the most loyal Trump defenders amongst attorneys, is expecting to get pardoned like Trump’s other lawyer attorneys?

    And if you are asking what he would need a pardon for? Well, what do all those others need a pardon for?

  8. Success for Durham against FBI

    ====

    John Durham and ex-FBI lawyer duel over prison sentence for FISA email deception

    Newly appointed special counsel John Durham and fired FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith filed dueling court filings on Thursday, with the former Crossfire Hurricane attorney trying to dodge any jail time and the federal prosecutor asking the court to sentence him to up to six months in prison after he pleaded guilty to FISA email deception.

    Clinesmith, who worked on the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server and on the FBI’s Trump-Russia inquiry as well as special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, admitted in August that he falsified a document during the bureau’s efforts to renew Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority to wiretap Carter Page, who had been a foreign policy adviser to now-President Trump’s 2016 campaign. Clinesmith fraudulently edited a CIA email in 2017 to state that Page was “not a source” for the agency when the CIA had told the bureau on multiple occasions that Page had been an “operational contact” for them.

    “As a licensed attorney and an officer of the Court, the defendant took an oath, was bound by professional and ethical obligations, and should have been well-aware of this duty of candor … His deceptive conduct … was antithetical to the duty of candor and eroded the FISC’s confidence in the accuracy of all previous FISA applications worked on by the defendant,” Durham wrote on Thursday, adding, “The defendant’s conduct also undermined the integrity of the FISA process and struck at the very core of what the FISC fundamentally relies on in reviewing FISA applications.”

    Durham, who used the title of “special counsel” in the filing, pointed out that Clinesmith’s deception “fueled public distrust of the FBI and of the entire FISA program itself.” The special counsel argued the court’s sentence “should send a message that people like the defendant — an attorney in a position of trust who others relied upon — will face serious consequences if they commit crimes that result in material misstatements or omissions to a court.”

    “The government respectfully submits that a sentence of incarceration that is at least between the middle and upper end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range is appropriate and warranted,” Durham said. “This case is outside the heartland of typical cases under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 [false statements], and such a sentence would reflect the seriousness of the offense.”

    In a filing that included more than 55 letters of support from Clinesmith’s family, friends, and colleagues, his lawyer argued for leniency.

    “Kevin Clinesmith made a grievous mistake. By altering a colleague’s email, he cut a corner in a job that required far better of him. He failed to live up to the FBI’s and his own high standards of conduct. And he committed a crime. Kevin pled guilty and accepts full responsibility. He deeply regrets his conduct and apologizes to all those who have been affected — including his former colleagues, the FBI, the DOJ, the Court, the public, and his family,” Clinesmith’s lawyer said.

    Clinesmith’s lawyer said his client “knew the original email did not contain those additional words, and he knew that the agent would, upon receiving the forwarded email, believe that it did.”

    “Significantly, however, Kevin did not knowingly lie about the relationship between Individual #1 and the other government agency. When Kevin informed the agent (and others) that Individual #1 was not a source, he genuinely believed he was conveying accurate information,” Clinesmith’s lawyer also contended. “Kevin’s reputation has been ruined, his professional career is in shambles, and he has been unable to support his family financially at a time when he and his wife are expecting their first child. While he has nobody but himself to blame for those consequences, they are, in conjunction with a non-custodial sentence, a just punishment for Kevin’s critical lapse in judgment.” He requested probation and community service.

    Clinesmith will be sentenced by the presiding judge on Dec. 10.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-and-ex-fbi-lawyer-duel-over-prison-sentence-for-fisa-email-deception

    1. What unbelievable chutzpah!

      Kevin Clinesmith made a grievous mistake. By altering a colleague’s email, he cut a corner . . . .

      That might be the stupidest lie ever. “Cutting corners” means doing something in a way that is easier or faster. It is easier and faster to leave the email in its original state than it is to illegally alter it.

      1. We need to have more justice when it comes to the Democrats overthrowing President Trump’s presidency.
        This man, Mr Jenkins, has got the right idea. Durham, Barr, and all Americans should follow his example. Mr. Jenkins is a role model and a hero for all patriots.

        https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article247582095.html
        “Miami man chases suspected unarmed burglar, shoots him as he begs for his life, cops say”

        Corthoris Jenkins was playing video games in his bedroom earlier this week when a suspected burglar burst into his North Miami-Dade efficiency. But Jenkins didn’t just call 911.

        Instead, police say, Jenkins grabbed an assault-style rifle, chased the unarmed burglar from the home and ran after him down the street, where the man fell to his knees.

        “He begins to what appears to be to beg for his life,” Miami-Dade Detective Iry Watson told a judge on Wednesday afternoon. “But the defendant takes the assault rifle and shoots him multiple times.”

        1. You left out the part of the article that notes “Jenkins was arrested and charged with first-degree attempted murder.”

          Mr. Jenkins broke the law. He is not a model for anyone. Mr. West, the burglar, should also be arrested if he recovers.

    2. Not only did Clinesmith believe the words he added to be true (if we are to believe his attorney and his own statements), as best I can tell, they *were* true:
      https://twitter.com/john_sipher/status/1334859254642200576 (Sipher is a former CIA Clandestine Service employee)
      Page wasn’t a “source” using the CIA’s meaning for “source.”

      Clinesmith shouldn’t have altered the email. He should have just appended a statement to it. I wonder what the sentence will be.

        1. The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious crime in American political history.

          The co-conspirators are:

          Kevin Clinesmith, 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.

      1. None of that matters. He lied about what the liaison said, and it was material. Moreover, he shows no remorse. He deserves a sentence much longer than six months.

        1. William, you can have any opinion you want about whether it matters, but the judge’s opinion about that (not yours or mine) is the one that will determine Clinesmith’s sentence.

          Whether it’s a lie to add “not a ‘source'” to the email depends on whether Page is was source. According to the CIA, Page wasn’t a source. Clinesmith was not charged with the statement “not a ‘source'” being false. He was charged under §1001(a)(3), because he altered the email, not under §1001(a)(2).

          He expressed remorse back in August when he pleaded guilty.

          Have any opinion you want about how long a sentence he deserves. That too is up to the judge, not you or me.

          1. William, you can have any opinion you want about whether it matters, but the judge’s opinion about that (not yours or mine) is the one that will determine Clinesmith’s sentence.

            Whether it’s a lie to add “not a ‘source’” to the email depends on whether Page is was source.

            No, it doesn’t. The lie was misrepresenting that the author of the email says Page wasn’t a source. Whether the author of the email was correct is absolutely irrelevant.

            1. “The lie was misrepresenting that the author of the email says Page wasn’t a source”

              A lie is a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive. How about you quote what you believe the lie to be, and then we can more easily resolve whether it’s a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive.

              1. I already told you what the lie is. The information in Clinesmith’s case does not get any more specific than that. I.e., it does not include the whole email message.

                It says,

                “The defendant had altered the original June 15, 2017 email from the OGA Liaison by adding the words ‘and not a source’ to the email, thus making it appear that the OGA Liaison had written in the email that Individual #1 was ‘not a source’ for the OGA.”

                And:

                “On or about June 19, 2017, within the District of Columbia, the defendant, KEVIN CLINESMITH, did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States. Specifically, on or about June 19, 2017, the defendant altered the OGA Liaison’s June 15, 2017 email by adding that Individual #1 ‘was not a source’ and then forwarded the email to the
                SSA, when in truth, and in fact, and as the defendant well knew, the original June 15, 2017 email from the OGA Liaison did not contain the words ‘not a source.'”

                1. Telling me something in your own words is not the same as quoting the original. I ask for quotes when it’s important to establish what the person’s own words are, and I frequently include quotes in my comments (sometimes quoting the person I’m responding to, to make clear what I’m addressing, and sometimes quoting someone else as evidence for a claim I’m making).

                  The information in Clinesmith’s case *does* get more specific than what you quoted; perhaps you just haven’t read enough of the materials. It’s not hard to find the entire sentence that Clinesmith altered and a bit more of the paragraph; it’s in the Statement of the Offense, and it’s also in the Horowitz Report, noting that OGA Liaison said the other government agency uses:
                  the [digraph] to show that the encrypted individual…is a [U.S. person]. We encrypt the [U.S. persons] when they provide reporting to us. My recollection is that [Individual #1] was or is and [sic] “[digraph]” but the [documents] will explain the details. If you need a formal definition for the FISA, please let me know and we’ll work up some language and get it cleared for use.

                  The third sentence was edited to “My recollection is that Page was or is and [sic] ‘[digraph]’ and not a ‘source’ but the [documents] will explain the details.”

                  Clinesmith also forwarded the unaltered email, as noted in the Horowitz Report (where he’s identified as “OGC Attorney”) and in the sentencing memorandum filed by Clinesmith’s lawyer: “Kevin forwarded it [the email]—unaltered and in its entirety—to the case agent, who was intimately involved in preparing the FISA application, and his supervisor.”

                  So the question is: is that combination (adding the words and forwarded the unaltered original) a lie — a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive?

                  The words Clinesmith inserted were not knowingly false. Since you’re the one arguing that he lied, what’s your argument that they were added with intent to deceive?

                  1. “Telling me something in your own words is not the same as quoting the original. I ask for quotes when it’s important to establish what the person’s own words are,”

                    Funny how the hypocrite that resides in your brain never afforded the same consideration to Michael Flynn. You continuously stated that his quoted words were in the FBI reports. They weren’t. You reassured more than one person they were there but no one could find those words. You never looked for them yourself and never produced those words.

                    Yet you say: ” I ask for quotes when it’s important to establish what the person’s own words are,”

                    That is a lie and you are a hypocrite plain and simple.

                  2. Falsified documents do not make a person honest.

                    You think explanations that do not deal with the criminal offense can suddenly cause criminality to disappear and honesty to shine.That is nothing more than your hypocrisy revealing itself once again.

                  3. Telling you in my own words is MUCH BETTER than quoting the source, since the source is five pages long.

                    1. If we’re discussing what Clinesmith wrote, telling me in your words isn’t better. The details of what he wrote and did matter.

                  4. In other words, the information does not include the entire email message — just as I said. It includes jumble of words made unintelligible by redactions.

                    So the question is: is that combination (adding the words and forwarded the unaltered original) a lie — a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive?

                    No, that is not the question. The truth or falsity of those words is completely irrelevant. For the fourth time: The lie is the claim that the Liaison wrote those words.

                    1. I didn’t say that the information included “the entire email message.” I said it included more than what you excerpted.

                      I didn’t find it to be a jumble of words / unintelligible.

                      “The lie is the claim that the Liaison wrote those words.”

                      Again, a lie is a knowingly false statement made with intent to deceive. What is your argument that his intent was to deceive?

    3. “Significantly, however, Kevin did not knowingly lie about the relationship between Individual #1 and the other government agency. When Kevin informed the agent (and others) that Individual #1 was not a source, he genuinely believed he was conveying accurate information,” Clinesmith’s lawyer also contended.
      Significantly, that has nothing to do with the crime in question. The crime in question was falsifying a document in a way that misled a judge, not his co-workers.

      These people truly believe they[‘re above the law.

    4. What about the September 2016 CIA communication to Cross fire Hurricane informing them Page was an asset. This was before the 1st FISA warrant. Also DOMINION still hasn’t filed a defamation lawsuit against atty’s Lee or Powell.

      1. There’s no rush for Dominion to file suit. Let Powell finish filing her suits, since that’s all evidence in a defamation suit if Dominion wants to file one. Or they might decide that the cost-benefit ratio isn’t worth it, depending on the rulings and how much of an ass Powell makes of herself.

        They did respond in the WSJ.

        1. Anon: “There’s no rush for Dominion to file suit.”

          Given this, I don’t think that Dominion is anxious to get within a country mile of discovery:

          In the *fall of 2020*, UBS Securities LLC — which is 75% owned by the Chinese government — invested $400 million in Staple Street Capital. Staple Street Capital owns Dominion Voting Systems (DVS).

          Dominion’s voting machines were widely used in the election. With $400 million from China, Dominion’s corrupt Security Chief, Eric Coomer, then put that dirty money to “good” use in the election.

          Coomer is a passionate defender of Antifa, and loathes Trump. He said to Antifa members: “Don’t worry about the election; Trump’s not gonna win. I made f***ing sure of that!” And so, flush with Chinese cash, he did.

          Here is a link to the SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1827586/000182758620000001/xslFormDX01/primary_doc.xml

    5. What about the CIA agent’s testimony to Horowitz that he informed Crossfire Hurricane about Cater Page in September 2016 before the 1st FISA warrant. Also the lawyers in the Case back in March 2016, one of them worked on Cross fire Hurricane and would of been one of the people. Signing it but he just so happened to quit right before then. The other lawyer Preet Brharaa or something like that.

    1. Electon fraud!!!

      “This looks like election fraud on a mass scale.

      Fulton officials throw everyone out of the room and start counting ballots in secret.

      For 2 hours.

      3,000 ballots per hour per machine.

      Multiple machines.

      The margin in Georgia is 12,000.”

      You do the math, @GaSecofState.

      — Rep. Jody Hice (@CongressmanHice) December 3, 2020

    2. As I noted earlier:

      Gabriel Sterling, Voting System Implementation Manager for GA (twitter.com/GabrielSterling/status/1334825233610633217):
      “The 90 second video of election workers at State Farm arena, purporting to show fraud was watched in its entirety (hours) by @GaSecofState investigators. Shows normal ballot processing. Here is the fact check on it.
      https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2020/12/fact-check-video-from-ga-does-not-show-suitcases-filled-with-ballots-pulled-from-under-a-table-after-poll-workers-dismissed.html

      Also https://twitter.com/ASFleischman/status/1334865575705763840

      Conspiracy theorists are trying to convince you of something false. Choose to look at all of the relevant evidence to understand why it’s false.

      1. Never believe your lying Eyes. That’s a great Moto to live by, Always being right, yes sir, just as Shultz would say “I know Nothing”. ? Why was that suitcase under a table to begin with, a change of clothes I suppose?

      2. “As I noted earlier:”

        And as I noted earlier, the article you linked to is full of half-truths and outright misrepresentations of the events captured on the surveillance video. (And it contradicts the affidavits signed by those who were there, *in the room*.)

        “Conspiracy theorists . . .”

        Your side needs a fresh ad hominem attack. That one’s stale.

        1. Sam, you’re being played by people stretching out this scam. to make money.

          The GOP Governor and Sec of State of Georgia are not in on a theft of the election from Trump. The hand count of printed ballots confirmed the machine totals.

          Wake up.

        2. Sam, I responded to you earlier, pointing out the part of the article that you ignored.

          You did not quote a single “half-truth” or “outright misrepresentation” from the article.

          If someone is relaying a conspiracy theory, it isn’t not ad hominem to say so.

          The people who signed those affidavits may believe what they wrote, but that doesn’t make it true. People have mistaken beliefs all the time.

          Here is yet more evidence of your belief being mistaken, this time from a local TV reporter:
          “I just spent 2 hours going through State Farm surveillance video with @GabrielSterling & state investigators. We watched chain of custody of the table & ballot boxes in question – from 8am until midnight. The boxes were packed & sealed with observers in room – nothing improper
          “if you are someone who doesn’t even believe the simple, basic fact (that has nothing to do with anything) that these are not suitcases – you live in a world outside of reason & reality. Here they are loading the crates – while observers and media were in the room at 10:01pm” (image attached)
          https://twitter.com/JustinGrayWSB/status/1334919773352812547

          Is there anything in the world that could convince you that you’re wrong? If so, what would do it?

          1. You can have other peoples’ opinions of the surveillance video.

            I’ll stick with the evidence of my own senses.

            1. So far, you’ve shown that you don’t have access to all of the relevant evidence.

              Do you even accept that you’d have to watch the entire uninterrupted video to be able to draw a valid conclusion yourself? You linked to a 14 minute video with several clips, when you need to watch hours of uninterrupted video.

              It’s too bad that you won’t answer the questions:
              Is there anything in the world that could convince you that you’re wrong? If so, what would do it?

              You don’t want to consider the possibility that you’re wrong.

              1. “Is there anything in the world that could convince you that you’re wrong? If so, what would do it?”

                The parting of the heavens, the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, and the streets flowing with Godiva chocolate.

                  1. Yes, my mind is closed to all sorts of conclusions: That 2+2=4. That the earth revolves around the sun. That O.J. murdered Nicole. That there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.

                    Far better a “closed” mind, than a drafty one.

  9. Turley: who’s going to keep you on the payroll once the orange monster and his syncophants are gone? Turley writes: “The move confirmed that, in a chaotic and spinning political galaxy, Bill Barr remains the one fixed and immovable object.” No, Turley, it doesn’t. Did you mention the mutiple-hour ass-chewing Barr got at the White House after he admitted there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud? After this, zit-faced Kayleigh claimed that Barr’s comments were misunderstood. Trump has to “win” something, Fox has to have something for it’s “hosts” to complain about, to keep the “deep state” narrative going and to try to create a legacy for the crooked fat slob, so we have Durham. Who cares about the “origins” of Mueller’s investigation? The investigation did not come from the Steele “dossier”, and despite the fact that Trump wouldn’t cooperate by being interviewed or deposed, and he procured the absence of witnesses and refused to produce documents, Mueller still proved that Russia helped Trump cheat. Trump also obstructed justice, and is an unindicted co-conspirator to Cohen’s prosecution. There were also dozens of criminal guilty pleas and convictions. Even with the cheating, Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020. Turley: Trump’s not worth spending your credibility trying to spin facts.

    1. Turley lost all credibility back in late ’19 when he was so obviously trying to normalize Trump’s extortion attempt. It’s hard to understand what’s going on with him.
      I look forward to a public report from whatshisname, though. I’m sure the FISA process is corrupt and I wouldn’t mind seeing the evidence.

  10. You’re assuming the Democrats would ever be bound by precedent or procedural principle. They play Calvinball and the media covers for them. Durham should have the report ready to ship by 20 January. Whoever is playing Malekon in this administration will have a letter of dismissal in front of Sundown Joe for his signature by 1:00 pm that day, depending on what sort of inaugural ceremonies will be possible given Biden’s current condition.

    1. Really was it a Democrat who said there should be no supreme court nominees in an election year. Talk about precedent

Leave a Reply