Clinton Lawyer’s Indictment Reveals “Bag of Tricks”

Below is my column in the Hill on the Sussmann indictment by Special Counsel John Durham. The single charge under 18 U.S.C. 1001 is not as significant as the supporting narrative and facts disclosed by Durham in this prosecution. The indictment fills in a number of blanks in how the Clinton campaign pushed a false Russian collusion narrative despite the objections of its own researchers.

Here is the column:

The 26-page indictment of former cybersecurity attorney and Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann by special counsel John Durham is as detailed as it is damning on the alleged effort to push a false Russia collusion claim before the 2016 presidential campaign. One line, however, seems to reverberate for those of us who have followed this scandal for years now: “You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag.”

That warning from an unnamed “university researcher” captures the most fascinating aspect of the indictment in describing a type of Nixonian dirty tricks operation run by — or at least billed to — the Clinton campaign. Fifty years ago, Nixon’s personal attorney and the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) paid for operatives to engage in disruptive and ultimately criminal conduct targeting his opponents. With Clinton, the indictment and prior disclosures suggest that Clinton campaign lawyers at the law firm of Perkins Coie helped organize an effort to spread Russia collusion stories and trigger an investigation.

Durham accuses Sussmann of lying to the general counsel of the FBI in September 2016 when Sussmann delivered documents and data to the FBI supposedly supporting a claim that Russia’s Alfa Bank was used as a direct conduit between former President Trump‘s campaign and the Kremlin. According to Durham, Sussman told the FBI general counsel that he was not delivering the information on behalf of any client. The indictment not only details multiple billings to the Clinton campaign as the data was collected and the documents created; it claims Sussman billed the campaign for the actual meeting with the FBI. At the time, Perkins Coie attorney Marc Elias was general counsel for the Clinton campaign. Both men have since left the firm.

The big trick in 2016 was the general effort to create a Russia collusion scandal with the help of Justice Department insiders and an eager, enabling media.

It was only last October, for instance, that we learned that then-President Obama was briefed by his CIA director, John Brennan, on an intelligence report that Clinton planned to tie then-candidate Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” That was on July 28, 2016 — three days before the Russia investigation was initiated.

The problem was that both the Steele dossier and the Alfa Bank allegations fell apart soon after being fed to the FBI. A key source for dossier compiler and former British spy Christopher Steele was viewed by American intelligence as a Russian agent, and it was believed that the Clinton campaign and the dossier were being used by Russian intelligence to spread disinformation.

According to Durham, the Alfa Bank allegation fell apart even before Sussmann delivered it to the FBI. The indictment details how an unnamed “tech executive” allegedly used his authority at multiple internet companies to help develop the ridiculous claim. (The executive reportedly later claimed that he was promised a top cyber security job in the Clinton administration). Notably, there were many who expressed misgivings not only within the companies working on the secret project but also among unnamed “university researchers” who repeatedly said the argument was bogus.

The researchers were told they should not be looking for proof but just enough to “give the base of a very useful narrative.” The researchers argued, according to the indictment, that anyone familiar with analyzing internet traffic “would poke several holes” in that narrative, noting that what they saw likely “was not a secret communications channel with Russian Bank-1, but ‘a red herring,’” according to the indictment. “Researcher-1” repeated these doubts, the indictment says, and asked, “How do we plan to defend against the criticism that this is not spoofed traffic we are observing? There is no answer to that. Let’s assume again that they are not smart enough to refute our ‘best case scenario.’ You do realize that we will have to expose every trick we have in our bag to even make a very weak association.”

“Researcher-1” allegedly further warned, “We cannot technically make any claims that would fly public scrutiny. The only thing that drives us at this point is that we just do not like [Trump]. This will not fly in eyes of public scrutiny. Folks, I am afraid we have tunnel vision. Time to regroup?”

Clinton herself discussed the allegations as if they were the product of independent sleuths. Right before the 2016 election, she tweeted, “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.”

The indictment details an operation that parallels the notorious Steele dossier, which also featured a pattern of working with FBI insiders while denying connections to the campaign.

The Clinton team denied involvement in the creation of the Steele dossier throughout the 2016 campaign despite direct media inquiries. It was only after the election that mysterious expenses for its legal counsel led reporters to discover the truth. The payments for the dossier were masked as “legal fees” among the $5.6 million paid to the law firm. According to New York Times reporter Ken Vogel, Elias categorically denied involvement in the anti-Trump dossier; when Vogel tried to report the story, he said Elias “pushed back vigorously, saying ‘You (or your sources) are wrong.’” Times reporter Maggie Haberman later wrote that “folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year.”

According to the indictment, Sussman told the truth — and contradicted what he’d originally told the FBI general counsel — when interviewed under oath in December 2017 before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, telling them he did not hold the meeting of his own volition but at the request of a client.

Notably, another Clinton figure pushing the Alfa Bank conspiracy was Jake Sullivan, who now weighs intelligence reports for President Biden as his national security adviser. Sullivan, a senior policy adviser to Clinton, declared in an official campaign press statement that the Alfa Bank allegation “could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow” and portrayed it as the work of independent experts: “Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia. … This line of communication may help explain Trump’s bizarre adoration of Vladimir Putin.”

So the “very useful narrative” was delivered to the media and the FBI and, along with the dossier, was used to launch the Russia investigation, which led to the appointment of former special counsel Robert Mueller. The “bag of tricks” was supposed to be buried with the involvement of the Clinton campaign — until Trump Attorney General William Barr appointed Durham as a second special counsel.

Sussman and Elias both recently left Perkins Coie. Elias has formed a new firm to give advice on ethics and campaign disclosures and is leading a Democratic group on “election integrity.” Sussmann reportedly is focusing on his own criminal defense.

Durham’s indictment of Sussman revealed quite a bit about how scandals are manufactured and manipulated in Washington. From CREEP to Clinton, lawyers discovered themselves in legal jeopardy when special prosecutors found them holding a “bag of tricks.” A dirty trick in politics can be a thing of beauty for a campaign — until it boomerangs on the tricksters.

Durham’s final report, meanwhile, could answer even more questions, but will Washington ever allow it to see the light of day without massive redactions?

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

132 thoughts on “Clinton Lawyer’s Indictment Reveals “Bag of Tricks””

  1. Based on the indictment, Elias and Sullivan (the Clinton foreign policy advisor to whom it refers) appear to have been part of the scheme to weaponise this false information by getting it to the FBI (and later the CIA) and the media. They participated in meetings and calls with Sussman on this subject. According to reporting by Paul Sperry on RealClear Investigations, Sullivan also appears to have been the orchestrator of the wider Clinton campaign scheme to implicate Trump in collusion with Russia, as revealed to Obama by Brennan in July of 2016. Durham’s investigation appears to be continuing. Perhaps he will persuade Sussman to cooperate. It may be that indictments of Elias or Sullivan will follow, though it’s not yet clear to me what specific crimes could be charged. Charging either one would be a very significant development.

  2. I’ve been very skeptical of the collusion narrative, but I’m sure Jonathan knows as criminal defense attorney that an indictment is not evidence. We can gain some information from an indictment but it’s ultimately just one side’s view of what the evidence shows, so naturally it’s going to be very damning.

  3. Biden’s first border chief accuses administration of destroying security, misleading Congress
    Rodney Scott warns Biden has created a “significant vulnerability … for terrorists, narcotics smugglers, human traffickers and even hostile nations.”

    0:47 / 1:32
    By John Solomon
    Updated: September 20, 2021 – 10:46pm
    Article
    Dig In
    In a stunningly blunt warning to senators, President Joe Biden’s just-departed Border Patrol chief is accusing the administration of intentionally eroding security to bring illegal aliens into the country and misleading Congress about the severity of the crisis.

    Rodney S. Scott, a 29-year career law enforcement officer who retired last month as the U.S. Border Patrol chief, wrote the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate and its Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that career experts have offered numerous recommendations to slow the crisis but have been repeatedly rebuffed.

    “Common sense border security recommendations from experienced career professionals are being ignored and stymied by inexperienced political appointees,” Scott wrote in the letter sent earlier this month and obtained by Just the News.

    Cont. https://justthenews.com/government/security/bidens-first-border-chief-accuses-administration-destroying-security-misleading?utm_source=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. “During last year’s presidential campaign, Scott appeared several times alongside Trump, eagerly defending his hard-line policies, leading some colleagues to privately express concern that Scott’s enthusiasm occasionally veered into partisanship.”

      1. So what, Independent?

        Was the border being sealed? Yes. Is the border a disaster today? Yes. Is this Biden policy going to permit more drugs into the country to kill our young? Yes. Will Biden let Covid be transmitted to various cities? Yes. Will Biden permit terrorists to enter? Yes. How about murderers and rapists? Yes. How about Biden overloading the essential services of cities like schools, police etc., will it cause a problem there? Yes. Will a lot of people heading north be raped, murdered and used by the cartels? Yes.

        I ask you again so what? Trump’s policy was a solution, so anyone that supported stopping the problems on our southern border would naturally be enthusiastic at the success of Trump.

        It seems you are a new anonymous icon who can be confused with Anonymous the Stupid. You don’t want to do that, do you?

        1. So don’t assume that Scott is a nonpartisan observer.

          The border has never been sealed. Trump’s own companies have employed illegal aliens for years.

          1. You are sounding more like Anonymous the Stupid than a new “Independent”.

            I see you didn’t answer any of the questions raised.

            Was the border being sealed? Yes. Is the border a disaster today? Yes. Is this Biden policy going to permit more drugs into the country to kill our young? Yes. Will Biden let Covid be transmitted to various cities? Yes. Will Biden permit terrorists to enter? Yes. How about murderers and rapists? Yes. How about Biden overloading the essential services of cities like schools, police etc., will it cause a problem there? Yes. Will a lot of people heading north be raped, murdered and used by the cartels? Yes.

            Do you prefer disaster at the border and in Afghanistan? That is what it sounds like.

            We can compare the ever increasing security under the Trump administration to the failure of the Biden Administration. Check out the Haitians under the bridge.

            Trump’s organizations may or may not have hired illegals. It’s difficult for employers to manage such a problem because leftists want to flood the country with illegal immigrants including those carrying drugs, Covid, etc. and also including murderers and rapists.

            SM

      2. Independent: you are using quotes but obscure exactly who is talking and when exactly Scott ‘appeared alongside trump’

  4. Unless there are raids by swat teams of at least 20 armed FBI agents of all of the Clinton crime family members and associates, I’m not impressed by the sleep inducing Durham Hologram. I realize that the FBI itself is a criminal and corrupt agency, but, with a little imagination and a tincture of integrity, it could be put to good use for a change.

  5. Project Veritas has a report on adverse events from the ‘vaccine’.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obdI7tgKLtA&t=173s

    I have heard from friends and associates about similar incidents, including two deaths.

    Studies have shown that those who are hesitating to get the vaccine far from being a bunch of swamp dwelling yahoos have actually given careful and informed thought before reaching their decision. Another study that asked people with different levels of education whether they were hesitant found that the largest group of hesitaants held PhDs.

    1. This was one of the better ones for people to ask their Docs about for treatment/s

      ***
      About 60 minutes long ( I watch many in pieces)

      COVID Early Treatment Pioneer Joins Infowars To Share Secret To His Patients’ Recoveries

      48,473 views

      ·

      Sep 13, 2021
      44
      Share
      Download
      The Alex Jones Show
      The Alex Jones Show

      Dr. Richard Bartlett joins Alex Jones live via Skype to share how and what people infected with COVID-19 can treat themselves with early on and have better results than ventilators and vaccines.

      https://banned.video/watch?id=613f890113839c20f6a66f1a

      1. Okay, have you signed up with PV to get their email so you can automatically post their videos on Twitter, if and when twitter takes the video down?

        They need loads of smaller Twitter users that do the same.

    2. To put things in perspective, how do the adverse effects reported by Veritas and two deaths compare with adverse effects and deaths from seasonal flu vaccine? How many deaths are avoided by each vaccine?

      1. Dr. Bryan Ardis,

        sites the FDA, 4 different study groups all showed around 2 Dead from Vaccines for every 1 person saved by their Gene Therapy Drugs.

        I believe it’s far far worst , 200/1 saved , & this is just the very early stage, what 8 months in.

        Every best pray they got the placebo instead of the drug.

        *****

        Dr. Ardis: The Medical Industry Is Responsible For ‘Covid’ Deaths, Not Virus

        58,806 views

        ·

        Sep 20, 2021
        74
        Share
        Download
        The Alex Jones Show
        The Alex Jones Show

        Dr. Bryan Ardis joins Owen Shroyer live in studio to break down how the medical industry in killing more people through toxic treatments and vaccines than the COVID virus itself.

        https://banned.video/watch?id=614916e2e20eb000d7b8d41e

      2. This is not a matter of whether one should get the vaccine or not. This involves permitting people to have the knowledge to make the decision for themselves knowing the risks on both sides. I am not anti vaccine as I took the vaccine and will likely take the booster.

        It has to do with other people that have a different set of risks. Why should they be denied their right to listen to all sides of the story?

        You should consider reposting the PV link to Twitter as well and have your friends do the same automatically.

    3. Young, Project Veritas expects the video to be banned on Twitter. They anticipate PV to be banned as well. If one signs up with Project Veritas, they can get their emails. On the top of the email, there is a link to post the video to Twitter automatically.

      Many people must take advantage of this easy posting of a PV video to Twitter. It opens ideas to the world and satisfies the needs that many on this blog are talking about.

      The problem is that I guess that some will not take advantage of another way of opening Twitter. PV has a lot of people already doing this. Still, they need as many as possible to break into this monopoly so that other voices can follow in the same way.

      Everyone that is not happy with the present situation should sign up with PV and repost their videos on Twitter. Adding more voices to the many that are already doing so protects our ability to be heard.

      Anyone who doesn’t do this should think about what they are willing to do to keep speech free and open.

      1. S. Meyer,

        As you predicted, the videos are taken down.

        The people behind this censorship may not realize that by being caught hiding information they create the legitimate fear is that the true situation is much, much worse than we had imagined and is being hidden. They lit the fire they are trying to extinguish. Not sure they wanted that.

        1. They can’t extinguish the fire and they are creating a health hazard for future problems since those that haven’t taken the vaccine are more reluctant to do so as you say because the full truth is not being permitted.

          Physicians deal with risk all the time telling patients how their procedures could kill or hurt the patient. They do not prevent the patient from seeking more information, so the physician is trusted and people follow the physician’s advice.

          Those physicians that tell patients not to get second opinions, or the like, are the one’s that intelligent people avoid.

          1. S. Meyer-

            True. Informed Consent has two legs: being Informed and granting consent. The current lawless administration wants to inject us with what is a novel experimental compound but it is suppressing information and it is brushing aside our consent.

            When they say ‘follow the science’ they mean abandon your need for information and your desire to control what happens to your own body and ‘follow the religion of scientism’. Fauci wants us to have faith–in him. He lost credibility some while back. I suspect even CNN doesn’t really believe him anymore but they will bow to the corporate line.

            1. S. Meyer–

              Right on time CNN comes up with this https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/19/media/reliable-sources-covid-research/index.html

              These 4 words are dangerous: “do your own research”. CNN doesn’t like them. Could that be because CNN constantly pumps misinformation and doesn’t want us to check for ourselves. Wasn’t it a nitwit on CNN who wondered if the missing Malaysian airliner went into a black hole? Yes, that person would be my primary source for information on science.

              But for links on other sites mocking CNN I wouldn’t know they were still in business.

            2. If a physician were to do what the government is doing he would be rightfully sued for malpractice and rightfully lose his license. Why should those bureaucrats who do not know the individual or even care for the individual have such control over their lives? Many of these bureaucrats are totally uneducated in science and medicine.

              The science regarding the vaccine IS uncertain. There are risks and benefits. The older and sicker one is, the higher the benefit vs risk. As we get healthier and younger the benefit to risk falls. We do not know the exact details of the risks or benefits and to date this nation has been very sloppy with the data.

              1. Lawsuits are being served. …… Robert Kenndy w/Robert Barnes, Lawyer/Dr Fleming

                I’m sending legal notices here the the North Oklahoma Med Community as to my own health care & their unlawful protocols they are using.

                That second link below also points out the legal info anyone can use to protect their extended families & themselves.

                I’m got to go back through it when I can & write down the exact locations in the govt docs.

                *****

                Young, James O’Keefe was on a bit ago w/AJ, & said that Project Vertas video went viral over night & still is. Everyone should pass it along. Tomorrow his says he has one even better released to the public.

                BREAKING: Project Veritas: Federal Whistleblower Goes Public with Secret Recordings on Covid Vax: ‘Government Shoves Adverse Effect Reporting Under the Mat’ (VIDEO)
                By Cristina Laila
                Published September 20, 2021 at 7:14pm
                340 Comments

                https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/breaking-project-veritas-federal-whistleblower-goes-public-government-shoves-adverse-effect-reporting-mat-video/

                ****

                Dr. Bryan Ardis joins Owen Shroyer live in studio to break down how the medical industry in killing more people through toxic treatments and vaccines than the COVID virus itself.

                https://banned.video/watch?id=614916e2e20eb000d7b8d41e

    4. Interesting that the Phoenix Indian Medical Center (ihs.gov/phoenix/healthcarefacilities/phoenix/) doesn’t list a Dr. Maria Gonzales on the staff, or even list someone by that name working anywhere with the Indian Health Service. You can search the staff directory here: https://www.ihs.gov/directory/

      I wouldn’t be surprised if Jodi O’Malley broke the law by recording conversations about patients in an IHS facility. A law-abiding whistleblower would file a whistleblower complaint with the IHS Inspector General.

      1. “Interesting that the Phoenix Indian Medical Center (ihs.gov/phoenix/healthcarefacilities/phoenix/) doesn’t list a Dr. Maria Gonzales on the staff, ”
        ****
        That is interesting, but people tend to get scrubbed from official sites fairly quickly for ‘wrong speak’. I don’t know whether she is legit or not, but Project Veritas usually checks those things before publication.

        As for recording conversations about patients I am not sure that there is a violation so long as no patient identifiers are mentioned.

        1. Per the person I spoke with at PIMC, they are aware of the recording, and they are looking into whether any laws were broken.

          1. First you imply she wasn’t there and then you say someone is checking to see if the person who wasn’t there broke any laws there while she wasn’t there.

            “they are looking into whether any laws were broken.” Usually it is a simple issue. If they are ‘looking into it’ they probably don’t have much.

            1. Maria Gonzales and Jodi O’Malley aren’t the same woman. You seem to be confusing them.

              I wouldn’t expect a PCMI receptionist to tell a random caller what they’ve determined.

  6. All this proves to me, if true, is that Clinton’s dirty tricks were no different than Trump’s. Not surprising since campaigns nowadays will do most anything to win. But, of course, Trumpists will usurp the Durham report as proof of their “Deep State” conspiracy theory despite the fact that Turley has neither endorsed that paranoid narrative, nor called the Mueller report a “witch hunt.”

    1. When facts bear it out, it moves from the realm of “conspiracy theory” to truth. The Muller investigation was based on lies and political dirty tricks. You can’t tell me that Pelosi and Dicky Schumer weren’t aware of that when they pushed for the appointment of Mueller.

    2. OK, Jeff, if Clinton’s dirty tricks were no better than Trumps, that would mean that Trump would have to have paid for Russian misinformation, packed it as a fake dossier, used it to get a FISA warrant to spy upon his political opponents with the intent of an October surprise, and then used it to undermine his rival’s presidency.

      You mock the Deep State conspiracy theory, yet an FBI agent was charged with a crime for altering the CIA email which exonerated Carter Page as working for them, so that it read the opposite. This forged email was then given to the FISA court. We have General Milley admitting that he promised a general from a hostile country that he would tip them off to any US military action. You have FBI agents caught on texts about working against Trump. We have Jim Comey caught lying repeatedly. We have Obama briefed that Hillary Clinton planned to fabricate ties from Trump to Russia to try to deflect interest in her server scandal days before the Russia investigation started. The IRS persecuted conservatives. The NSA lied about spying on Americans in general and Trump specifically. We have the Obama Administration unmasking members of Trump’s team in order to spy upon them.

      There are myriad more examples of Democrat operatives abusing their positions of power in government and intelligence in order to fight Trump. That’s abuse of power, which appears to be just fine with you as long as it serves your political goals.

      This malleability of conscience is what gives rise to dictatorships and fascism.

      Meanwhile, conservative are fighting you fools to try to keep government limited and individual freedoms strong. I hope we win, because the alternative is yet another abusive Leftist regime.

  7. “Biden Administration Requires all Foreign Travelers Entering U.S. to be Vaccinated, Except Illegal Border Crossers Who are Exempt From U.S. Rules and Laws ”

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/09/20/biden-administration-requires-all-foreign-travelers-entering-u-s-to-be-vaccinated-except-illegal-border-crossers-who-are-exempt-from-u-s-rules-and-laws/

    This may be the most dangerously stupid and corrupt administration in the history of the country.

      1. Yes, I see how the illegal immigrants are passed in without Covid cautions and shipped like disease vectors to towns throughout the country.

        1. It’s amazing. We have a military crisis. Hundreds of Navy Seals are refusing the vaccine and they are being sidelined even if they already had Covid. However, it is perfectly fine for the Biden administration to send illegal immigrants by plane all over the US despite the fact that some have Covid.

          ATS sounds like a nutcase.

          1. And that’s especially stupid because naturally acquired immunity from recovering from Covid is equal to or better than vaccine-acquired immunity. After all, the vaccine mimics the infection so as to produce immunity. Naturally acquired immunity recognizes more binding sites than just those on the spike protein.

            I’m vaccinated, and was glad to have that opportunity. It’s a shame that the Biden Administration took a good thing, the vaccine, and turned it into a caste society which is not even based on science.

            Nowhere else was that caste stratification more visible than at the Met Gala, the Emmys, and the Oscars, were the glitterati partied maskless while the help wore masks.

            1. “And that’s especially stupid …”

              Whoever accused the Biden Administration of being smart? They probably made one of the dumbest moves ever in Afghanistan and on our Southern border. Where has the Biden Administration shined? Nowhere goo, but as a criminal enterprise they might actually shine if anyone took a look.

              OAC’s dress ’Tax the Rich’ cost a fortune and was made by a company that hasn’t paid their taxes. OAC was served by ‘the lower class’ who were forced to wear masks. These people are hypocrites.

      2. Anonymous, by definition,illegal immigrants who are not prosecuted have been exempted from federal immigration laws.

        Requiring some people to be vaccinated, but not others, make the latter exempt.

        Sanctuary cities also exempt illegal aliens from federal immigration law and court deportation orders.

        Here in CA, illegal aliens are allowed to buy car insurance that costs less, and has less coverage, than is required for legal residents and citizens. This makes illegal aliens exempt from insurance standards required of others.

        1. “by definition,illegal immigrants who are not prosecuted have been exempted from federal immigration laws.”

          No, you are not exempt from a law unless the text of the law itself exempts you.

          Using your definition, you’d have to conclude that the vast majority of drivers are exempt from speed limit laws most of the time, since most drivers speed more often than they are ticketed. But it isn’t true that they’re exempt; it’s only true that they weren’t ticketed.

          “Requiring some people to be vaccinated, but not others, make the latter exempt.”

          Yes, if the text actually requires vaccination of some people and not others. How about you link to the text of whatever law, executive order, etc. you have in mind so we can read what it requires?

          “Here in CA, illegal aliens are allowed to buy car insurance that costs less, and has less coverage, than is required for legal residents and citizens. This makes illegal aliens exempt from insurance standards required of others.”

          Is this what you’re talking about: http://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/105-type/95-guides/01-auto/lca/
          If so, it allows all low income CA residents to buy such insurance.

          1. Anon: “No, you are not exempt from a law unless the text of the law itself exempts you. ”

            —-

            This is a typical move by Anon TS to throw sand in our eyes.

            Strictly speaking one is not exempt from a law unless one is part of a group that is expressly exempted.

            But he knows what we mean. There is a lex scripta on the one hand and then there is a reality of enforcement on the other.

            If government officers fail to enforce the law on one group while enforcing it on a different group, then there is a de facto exemption for the first group.

            The Biden administration is in the midst of a colossal failure in governing. You require identification to board a plane under law, but illegals [who have broken the law without penalty] are packed into public transportation and scattered around the country without ID, without Covid testing, without vaccination, and without regard to state or federal law. Frankly, I think state authorities should start arresting federal goons for violating state laws without legal justification. The Supremacy Clause doesn’t count when there is no federal law supporting fed actions. Its time for state authorities to remember that.

            If a foreign government were doing that to us it would be an act of war. Perhaps our own government, filled with radicals, has declared war on the rest of us.

            The present government, from Dim Bulb Biden, through ‘YMCA’ Milley, and on down through the bloated and overmighty bureaucracies appears to be at war with the rest of the country and they have already done enormous damage to us.

            Yes, the illegals are, in fact, exempt from many of our laws.

            And Anon TS knows it. He is just not honest.

            1. “This is a typical move by Anon TS to throw sand in our eyes.“

              It is ATS deceit and dishonesty, plain and simple.

            2. I don’t know, but at this point with what’s been happening for decades some or all states claim the Fed Govt is derelict in their duty to protect states from invasion & claim Sovereignty Rights over their state’s jurisdiction, start rounding up illegal aliens & shipping them out of the US.

              I think it’d be interesting to see the states ignore or attack the Fed Judiciary when the try to interfere.

              Tell the Judiciary they’ve also failed to act for the security of the state….

              1. If a federal judge wants illegals to stay in the country I would put them in the judge’s neighborhood–as many as can fit. Maybe when they pee on his rose bushes and poop on his bed he will rethink the law. He could probably use a bunch of bums from the homeless camps as well.

                1. Amazing time to be alive, total corruption everywhere & every form of unconstitutional behaviour from most govt leaders/Judges.

                  I believe all in an attempt to divert blame of the collapse from the Govt’s/major bank’s use of factional reserve bank.

                  Many other claim we’re already in the beginning of this collapse.

                  We’ll see.

            3. “Strictly speaking one is not exempt from a law unless one is part of a group that is expressly exempted.”

              Glad we agree.

              “But he knows what we mean.”

              Actually, I assumed that Karen was referring to the exact meaning, since she explicitly said “by definition,illegal immigrants who are not prosecuted have been exempted from federal immigration laws.” You’ve already agreed with me that by definition, she is incorrect.

              “There is a lex scripta on the one hand and then there is a reality of enforcement on the other. If government officers fail to enforce the law on one group while enforcing it on a different group, then there is a de facto exemption for the first group.”

              I’ll believe that you generally use “exempt” that way when I see you using it for yourself and saying things like “I’m exempt from speeding laws most of the time.”

              1. You think you survive based on deceit and lies. You survive as a non-credible individual who cannot be trusted.

              2. ANON TS–

                “Actually, I assumed that Karen was referring to the exact meaning, since she explicitly said “by definition,illegal immigrants who are not prosecuted have been exempted from federal immigration laws.” You’ve already agreed with me that by definition, she is incorrect.”
                ***

                The OCD is strong with you today. You cannot bear to be wrong. However, you are wrong.

                An ‘exact meaning’ of ‘exempt’ as generally used fits Karen’s use. Usually legal definitions are more narrowly drawn and less useful in normal commentary. Notice, for example, how often lay people use the expression ‘time is of the essence’ without understanding that it imposes a strict legal condition in contracts. Or see how uninformed people attack the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution believing it means one thing when it actually serves a completely different purpose.

                However, you have highlighted a very important point. The actual law does not exempt illegal immigrants. Biden does.

                Biden is failing in his oath of office to “uphold the laws’ of this country and failing in his duty to protect our borders.

                Clearly, by your insistence on narrow legal definitions [appropriate when applied to the President] you believe that the Biden Administration is a lawless Administration. I thinks it is lawless too. I’m pleased we agree on something.

                1. “The actual law does not exempt illegal immigrants. Biden does.”

                  What actual law are you referring to that Biden is exempting people from, and what order did Biden give creating this exemption? Please link to both the law’s text and the text of Biden’s order, so that we can all read them and see whether you’re correct.

                  “Biden is failing in his oath of office to “uphold the laws’ of this country”

                  Why did you put the phrase “uphold the laws” in quotation marks, and what are you quoting? The Presidential Oath of Office (specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution) certainly doesn’t contain that phrase.

                  “Clearly, by your insistence on narrow legal definitions [appropriate when applied to the President] you believe that the Biden Administration is a lawless Administration.”

                  I believe you’re trolling by pretending to read my mind. Your pal Allan does the same thing.

                  1. No, Anonymous the Stupid. Young is merely making things clear. You live in a murky sewer and attempt to deceive rather than inform. Young is providing a public service.

                  2. Anon TS-

                    Up to your old pretenses. As Sam pointed out, your objections take the form of: “You failed to put a hyphen in anti vaxxer.” Is that another OCD thing with you?

                    Another common trick ours, claiming that I am “pretending to read your mind.” That’s one of your stock phrases to flee from the logical conclusions of your statements. It’s a dodge and you know it. I was simply following the logic of your claim to its conclusion. “There is no exemption for immigration laws” [paraphrase] and Biden is exempting illegals from the law, therefore Biden is failing to uphold the law. Biden is running a lawless administration. He picks laws he likes like candies from a sampler box and discards the rest.

                    I put ‘uphold the laws’ in quotes for emphasis. Here is the actual oath.

                    -“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

                    Do you imagine that to ‘ preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’ and ‘ faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States’ do not actually embrace ‘uphold the laws’ of the United States and much more?

                    You know they do. Again you are diving into trivial distinctions to conceal the truth.

                    That is why you are so often called dishonest.

                    You are.

                    1. “As Sam pointed out, your objections take the form of: “You failed to put a hyphen in anti vaxxer.””

                      LOL that you equate asking you for the text of a law that you’ve so far refused to specify with a spelling complaint.

                      “That’s one of your stock phrases to flee from the logical conclusions of your statements.”

                      I’m not fleeing that actual logical conclusions of my statements. I’m pointing out that you were attributing a conclusion to me that is NOT a logical conclusion of what I have said.

                      ““There is no exemption for immigration laws” [paraphrase] and Biden is exempting illegals from the law, therefore Biden is failing to uphold the law.”

                      But you have yet to show that “Biden is exempting illegals from the law.” You claim this, yet even though I specifically asked you for evidence, you haven’t provided evidence for it.

                      “Biden is running a lawless administration. He picks laws he likes like candies from a sampler box and discards the rest.”

                      That’s your characterization, not mine. I bet that Biden does this less than Trump did, and I didn’t call the Trump Admin “a lawless Administration” either.

                      “Again you are diving into trivial distinctions to conceal the truth.”

                      I’m not. I asked you a sincere question, as I didn’t know what you were quoting. Quotation marks don’t indicate emphasis, so it’s bizarre that you assume I’d have known that’s why you used them.

                      That you call me dishonest doesn’t make me dishonest.

                      If you refuse to provide real evidence for your claim, OK, but I’m not going to assume it’s true without evidence.

                    2. ANON TS

                      “What actual law are you referring to that Biden is exempting people from, and what order did Biden give creating this exemption? Please link to both the law’s text and the text of Biden’s order, so that we can all read them and see whether you’re correct.”

                      “the text of a law that you’ve so far refused to specify”

                      “But you have yet to show that “Biden is exempting illegals from the law.”

                      “LOL”

                      ————-

                      You are becoming a caricature of yourself. Rather than muck around with your ‘requests’ I find it much easier to believe that you are the only person in the country who::

                      1. Doesn’t know that there is an illegal immigration crisis on the border.

                      2. Doesn’t know that ‘The Buck Stops Here’ Biden is responsible.

                      3. Doesn’t know that entering the country illegally is illegal.

                      You should follow the news. Try to keep up ANON TS. Failure to is how you earned your nickname.

                      Your posts are revealing a pattern, “LOL”. Did you learn that in Troll School?

                      You forgot to throw in that I asked leading questions and created a straw man and a false dichotomy. Review your Troll School notes.

                    3. ANON TS,

                      Oh well, it was handed to me on a platter https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/biden-finally-admits-border-control-says-will-get-control/

                      “Joe Biden finally admitted what has been clear since the day he took office last January and started dismantling President Trump’s border and immigration policies–that the U.S. southern border is out of control.”

                      See ANON TS? That’s what comes up with even a casual glance at the news. You should try it. Spend less time in Troll Camp.

                    4. So your response to “What actual law are you referring to that Biden is exempting people from, and what order did Biden give creating this exemption? Please link to both the law’s text and the text of Biden’s order, so that we can all read them and see whether you’re correct.” is a bunch of words, none of which link to any law or any order.

                      “You should follow the news.”

                      I do.

                      I simply don’t jump to your thus-far-unwarranted conclusions.

                      “That’s what comes up with even a casual glance at the news.”

                      But that doesn’t demonstrate your claim that Biden is exempting people from our laws. You seem to have a hard time keeping hold of the claim being discussed.

                    5. ANON TS–

                      “But that doesn’t demonstrate your claim that Biden is exempting people from our laws.
                      You seem to have a hard time keeping hold of the claim being discussed.”

                      You keep assuming I have to demonstrate anything to you. I don’t and I certainly wouldn’t bother with something commonly known.

                      As for your second sentence about having a hard time keeping hold of the claim. That’s just Troll Talk. You do it often with every person who comments on this site.

                    6. “But you have yet to show that “Biden is exempting illegals from the law.’”

                      How about just once, you focus on reality — rather than playing games with words (which is a typical skeptic’s trick, used to deflect and to undermine a person’s confidence in their judgment).

                      Reality: The Biden administration mandates vaccinations for some American citizens.

                      Reality: It does *not* mandate vaccination for immigrants.

                      Reality: The Biden administration keeps pushing vaccinations, for everyone — except for immigrants. It keeps “cajoling” companies to require vaccinations. But it remains silent about vaccinations for immigrants. (And, in fact, won’t even answer the question about this obviously inconsistent policy.)

                      That is a clear contradiction, used to protect a “favored” class. And during a pandemic, it’s national suicide.

                      Incidentally, what’s happening at the Southern border is not immigration. It’s utter chaos. This administration had no rational plan for getting *out* of a country, and does not have one for letting people *into* a country.

                  3. Anonymous, for your analogy to hold water, the president would have to declare that police were forbidden from pulling over anyone speeding ever again. You could speed with impunity, thus granting mass exemption from moving violations.

                    It’s not that illegal aliens aren’t getting caught, like the guy speeding on an empty road. They are caught, processed, and released, exempting them from federal immigration law. Why would anyone go through the legal process anymore?

                    Los Angeles DA Gascon will no longer prosecute anyone driving without a license, so AB 60 might be a moot point.

                    Prior to AB 60, applicants for any insurance, low cost or otherwise, had to provide a valid drivers license. Illegal aliens couldn’t get a valid drivers license, which is one of the reasons why identity theft is so rampant. AB 60 gave them the license, which allowed them to qualify for the low cost car insurance. This allows them to get into an accident with coverage too low to pay for the damage.

                    Over and over again, the Left makes it easier for people to break the law. If it was impossible to find work, get benefits, or get housing here in the US, and CA specifically, then it would motivate people to go through the legal immigration system instead. This would make immigration more manageable, coinciding with housing, jobs, and benefits availability. Instead, it’s a free for all. CA offers myriad benefits to illegal immigrants, of which low cost auto insurance is just one. An illegal alien can get in an accident with a legal resident, and be allowed much lower coverage. That means it might not cover the damage they caused to the other person’s vehicle. This low cost insurance was expanded to allow illegal aliens, in addition to the AB 60 licensure, because there was a very high rate of hit and runs in which unlicensed aliens would cause an accident, and then leave the scene. This was supposed to induce them to stick around the scene of an accident.

                    Data from 2018 showed that AB 60 had no affect on the rising rate of hit and runs.

                    http://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/105-type/95-guides/01-auto/lca/upload/Assessing-the-Impacts-of-AB-60-California-s-Low-Cost-Auto-Insurance-Program-and-Uninsured-Motorists-Report.pdf

                    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60

                    1. “Anonymous, for your analogy to hold water, the president would have to declare that police were forbidden from pulling over anyone speeding ever again.”

                      If you think that the President has declared that illegal aliens are exempt from immigration laws, quote him. I’m not going to take your word for it.

                      Even Young admitted that “Strictly speaking one is not exempt from a law unless one is part of a group that is expressly exempted.”

                      “Over and over again, the Left makes it easier for people to break the law. If it was impossible to find work, get benefits, or get housing here in the US, and CA specifically, then it would motivate people to go through the legal immigration system instead.”

                      Plenty of people on the right ALSO make it easier for people to break the law; for example, the Republicans in Congress are refusing to fund the IRS sufficiently to catch rich tax cheats, even though the extra cost would be more than balanced by additional revenue. People on the right also employ illegal immigrants. A number have even been employed at Trump properties. So don’t pretend that this is all on the left.

                      I’ll also remind you that it is LEGAL to arrive at the border and request asylum, and the asylum law does not allow people to apply for asylum from abroad: they have to come here in order to apply.

                  4. Sam,

                    “How about just once, you focus on reality — rather than playing games with words”

                    First, I’m not playing games with words. Words have meanings. I’ll remind you that you yourself have responded to people by saying things like “If you want a government of men, and not of laws, then keep mangling the definitions of words, such as “treason.”” We are discussing a legal issue, and the meaning of the word matters.

                    Second, we can focus BOTH on reality AND on meaning, so don’t pretend that we cannot.

                    “Reality: The Biden administration mandates vaccinations for some American citizens.”

                    Yes, he has mandated vaccination for “federal executive branch workers” and “employees of contractors that do business with the federal government.”

                    “Reality: It does *not* mandate vaccination for immigrants.”

                    If the immigrants are either “federal executive branch workers” or “employees of contractors that do business with the federal government,” then the mandate applies to them.

                    There is also a separate mandate for immigrants that will apply as of October 1: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/covid-19-vaccination-required-for-immigration-medical-examinations
                    Elsewhere, the CDC notes “Refugees and immigrants seeking admission into the U.S. are required to have a medical examination.”

                    “Reality: The Biden administration … keeps “cajoling” companies to require vaccinations.”

                    And if those companies employ immigrants, then the companies’ decisions will apply to them.

                    1. “Words have meanings.”

                      That is true ATS, and you intentionally twist those meanings to prevail rather than to debate honestly. You are dishonest. You move back and forth between legal and ordinary use as long as it suits your purpose, again a dishonest method of debate.

                      Your way of looking at things is discriminatory. To you, all men are not created equal, and the rule of law doesn’t fit all categories. That is another one of your dishonest features.

              3. “Strictly speaking one is not exempt from a law unless one is part of a group that is expressly exempted.”

                Why aren’t we deporting all the illegals we come across. The are not exempt from the law. Yet some have been here for decades.

                1. Iowan–

                  That is the point this Anonymous is twisting and chattering to avoid. He is not honest.

                  Peculiar that he equated Republican resistance to give the IRS all the funding they want to breaking the law. After it was weaponized by Obama is should get less until it is reformed. Giving it money now would be like giving weapons to the Taliban.

      3. Would you let Jen Psaki know? She has refused to say illegals are being vaccinated. But i’m sure you know more that the White House Press Secretary

    1. I know I’ll be sending this interview out to many:

      45:00 minutes long

      Dr. Ardis: The Medical Industry Is Responsible For ‘Covid’ Deaths, Not Virus

      6,312 views

      ·

      Sep 20, 2021
      9
      Share
      Download
      The Alex Jones Show
      The Alex Jones Show

      Dr. Bryan Ardis joins Owen Shroyer live in studio to break down how the medical industry in killing more people through toxic treatments and vaccines than the COVID virus itself.

      https://banned.video/watch?id=614916e2e20eb000d7b8d41e

    1. It’s an analysis that uses spin and thinks the indictment provides all the information one needs to know. There is nothing special, and certainly nothing enlightening.

      1. They were reduced to having to target the majority of the participants–journalists–and the occasional FBI agent dressed like a bum.

Leave a Reply