We have previously discussed the alarming demands of former Special Counsel Jack Smith for the phone records of members of Congress. Despite the efforts of members like Rep. Dan Goldman (D, NY) to downplay the gravity of such demands, they represent a serious intrusion into the confidentiality of legislators’ communications, including the potential disclosure of journalists, whistleblowers, and others. Now, it appears that AT&T did supply the records of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the second in line of succession to the presidency of the United States.
The new disclosure contradicts earlier denials that Smith obtained the record. AT&T had indicated to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that the company had not shared any of the former speaker’s phone records.
However, a letter from AT&T to Grassley now indicates that McCarthy’s records were given to Jack Smith after a separate demand that did not identify him as the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. The FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division tied the demand to a “significant case notification.” AT&T admitted that it had processed the separate request and turned over the records. It emphasized that the subpoena “sought records for a personal cellular phone number” and that it did not in “any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress.”
McCarthy responded to the news by warning that “if corrupt justice will do it to the speaker, they’ll do it to anyone.”
He is right. Indeed, in an equally chilling acknowledgment, the company noted that the number of these demands is so high that it rarely exercises much scrutiny or review unless the government flags their position or status:
“AT&T’s Global Legal Demand Center receives hundreds of thousands of legal demands each year, and unlike the May 2023 subpoena discussed in our October 24 response, the subpoena we produced today did not seek records from a campaign account. Rather, as confirmed from press accounts, the subpoena sought records for a personal cellular phone number. It also did not in any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress.
As a result, the subpoena processing center had no reason to believe that the phone number was associated with a member of Congress, and AT&T did not make further inquiries to the Special Counsel and produced the information as required by the subpoena.”
Goldman’s dismissal of any concerns over such records being exposed is hardly surprising. However, the media has shown only muted or passing concern about the implications of Smith’s intrusion into legislative communications.
The sweeping and reckless demand by Smith is a signature of his career. He has shown a sense of impunity in how he conducts investigations, an abandon that has led to major losses such as the unanimous overturning of his conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell by the United States Supreme Court.
These records are not the trivial matters portrayed by Democratic members. That is why Smith and others seek them. They reveal who called members, when they called, and how long each call lasted. They reveal contact information on a wide array of people seeking assistance or giving information to Congress.
To acquire such information on the man second in line for the presidency is particularly outrageous. It could expose embarrassing or personal information on a member of the opposing party and someone who might ultimately exercise authority over the Justice Department.
The lack of outrage from Democrats and the media shows how ideology now blinds many to their institutional and professional interests. As someone who has worked closely with members and represented the House in court, I always assumed that such information would be confidential. I am certain that the members operated under that same assumption. That has now been shattered, and all the many Democratic members and pundits can muster is a shrug and a smile.
This is wild stuff !!!
The case against Comey is now essentially dead due to incompetence by the DOJ, and Lindsey Halligan in particular.
NOW, the mortgage fraud cases against Schiff and Letitia James are doomed.
Apparently a Grand Jury in Maryland is investigating Bill Pulte, the Director of the Federal Housing Administration, and Ed Martin, the Director of the Weaponization Working Group at DOJ.
Apparently, they hired “unauthorized” individuals to assist with the investigations and, by their participation, could have “tainted” the cases being made against Schiff and James as part of Trump’s revenge agenda.
So, Trump’s own DOJ and FBI is now investigating misconduct by the people in his own administration who are responsible for the bogus mortgage fraud cases.
This is astounding!!!
A total fiasco, where the DOJ is actually being forced to investigate the misconduct of senior officials in the Trump administration.
It must be astoundingly bad if Trump’s DOJ is forced to investigate.
You really couldn’t make this up if you tried !!!!!!
He told you right up front that his false hyperbole is “wild stuff.” Now there’s an honest man.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Will the judicial branch be impartial and allow adaptation for simple human error, if error without intent or malice is truly the case, or favor the patently guilty perjurer and falsely acquit, and how much does that cost, anyway?
Rabble:
The singular jonathanturley.org failure is the mods, with emphasis on not stopping your copy-paste tripe.
Either stay on topic or go start your own blog.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The overwhelming singular failure of the American republic rights and freedoms experiment has been voters allowing the continued existence of the vile and violent, seditious DNC and their equally vile members like GeorgeX. The Democrats who blame the chaos they’ve created on the Supreme Court, not themselves. SCOTUS being the only reason they have what they couldn’t get at the ballot box.
The Confederate DNC who have now embraced Marx/Alinsky’s communist strategies since losing their earlier Kluxxer Civil War and now put their fellow communists like Justices Jackson and Sotomayor on SCOTUS, polluting that court in hopes of continuing to get from SCOTUS what voters consistently reject at the ballot box.
And while GeorgeX and other communist Democrats want to blame SCOTUS – at the same time they howl in delight at the actions of Jackson and Sotomayor that they worked so hard to put on SCOTUS.
Eyeroll
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/doj-says-foreperson-confirmed-grand-jury-approved-two-count-comey-indictment
OldFish
All this establishes is that the grand jury voted to indict and issued a true bill.
But that is not the issue.
That is not in dispute.
The problem is in the way that Halligan handled the subsequent indictment.
The US Attorney is supposed to take the true bill and then prepare an indictment. The true bill is not an indictment. The indictment is an entirely separate document that must set out the charges with specificity and particularity. It must include a statement of the offense, cite the statutes that were violated, provide factual allegations that support the offense along with dates, times and location of the offense. None of that is provided in a true bill, which is simply a mostly hand written notification of the results of the GJ vote.
The indictment is a completely separate document that must be signed by a prosecuting attorney and the GJ foreperson. Then there is a crucial step that must be taken as required by precedent set forth by Gaither vs US in 1969. This requires the government to take the completed and signed indictment back to the full GJ for approval before it can be submitted to the court. Failure to do this renders the indictment defective, null and void. According to Gaither vs US, this failure means that a valid indictment does not even exist. This is what happened in Comey. Halligan and prosecutor Lemons both confirmed that the completed indictment was never shown to the GJ. This failure means that a valid indictment was not submitted to the court. Gaither also held that such a failure is not correctable based on harmless error, and requires the government to go back to the GJ and complete an entirely new indictment. Usually when this occurs, the government still has time to repeat the entire process and submit a new indictment. But in Comey, the statute of limitations has expired and the government is stymied. They cannot get a new indictment.
This latest filing by Halligan saying that the GJ “VOTED” on the two charges in the indictment is irrelevant as far as Gaither is concerned. The fact that the GJ “VOTED” is not in dispute. The dispute is how the “INDICTMENT DOCUMENT” was handled.
This latest filing by Halligan is a completely disingenuous attempt to muddy the waters by deliberately trying to conflate voting for a true bill and the preparation of a valid indictment. They know that they cannot get a new indictment so they are deliberately obfuscating the facts to try to save the existing, but invalid indictment.
The judge will reject this as a deliberate attempt of obfuscation of the facts to mislead the court, and may even issue a reprimand for this outrageous behavior.
Trustworthy laws have asserted that you are WRONG – both about the facts and the law.
First the full GJ voted TWICE – once on a 3 count indictment, where they approved two counts and rejected a third, and once on a final version with only two counts.
Even if the latter is not correct – the original indictment with 2 counts reported as true and one count reported as no true bill meets the legal requirements for a valid indictment.
As one attorney noted if the original indictment was on toilet paper and had the rejected count crossed out and was actually voted on and signed by the GJ formeman and AUSA then there is a valid indictment and all that is being debated falls under the catagory of “scrivners errors” – not even defects that would require reindictment.
But the actual fact is that the GJ voted TWICE once on the 3 count indictment – rejecting one count and once on the final 2 count indictment with the rejected count removed.
JTN cited the GJ foreman – but reported outside the far left is that there are transcripts of all of this and that it was previously all reviewed by the GJ magistrate federal judge and the District Courts Magistrate judge.
There is absolutely something DOA here – but it is the challenge to the indictment, not the indictment itself.
All your left wing nut experts – who would likely get it wrong even with accurate information are still pontificating based on false or incomplete information.
This is a tempest in a tea pot.
Further it is likely to prove a major embarrassment for the federal District judge.
It smells horribly like bias.
It is not enough to get him removed at this point, but it is likely to push him towards being more careful about showing his biases in the future – I am sure Halligan and DOJ have already drawn up a motion for recusal, and have it ready to append future evidence of Bias to.
You do not understand the difference between a true bill and an indictment document. They are two distinct but related things.
A true bill is simply a record that the GJ voted and found probable cause for an indictment. That is all it is. Nothing more, nothing less. There is absolutely no dispute that the GJ voted to bring an indictment. There is absolutely no dispute that the GJ returned a true bill.
That is not the point.
After receiving the true bill, the AUSA prepares an indictment document that must contain certain information that is not in the true bill. The true bill is not an indictment document. The indictment is an entirely separate document that must set out the charges with specificity and particularity. It must include a statement of the offense, cite the statutes that were violated, provide factual allegations that support the offense along with dates, times and location of the offense. None of that is provided in a true bill, which is simply a mostly hand written notification of the results of the GJ vote.
The indictment is then signed by the AUSA and the GJ foreman. The Gaither precedent then requires that the final completed document must be presented to the full GJ for their approval before it can be submitted to the court. Failure to do this renders the indictment inoperative. It does not exist until the full GJ reviews it. The reason for this is to ensure that the AUSA has prepared an indictment consistent with the true bill and that no inadvertent changes have been made. The Gaither court specifically held that the signature of the foreman alone is not sufficient affirmation that the indictment conforms to the intent of the full GJ and their true bill. The court held that the final indictment MUST be presented to the full GJ. The Gaither court also held that once the indictment is submitted to the court it is not correctable by any means including for harmless error. They held that if the indictment was subsequently shown to be defective, then the government would have to go back to the GJ and repeat the entire process for an entirely new indictment. In most cases this has not been a problem because the government generally had sufficient time to get a new indictment before the statute of limitations expired. But in the Comey case the SOL has expired and now the prosecutors are flailing in a futile attempt to rescue the indictment.
HALLIGAN DID NOT PRESENT THE FINAL INDICTMENT DOCUMENT TO THE FULL GJ !!!
SHE ADMITTED JUDGE THAT SHE DID NOT DO THAT !!
PROSECUTOR LEMONS ADMITTED THAT DID NOT HAPPEN !!
In their latest filing today the government is trying to back track by saying that record shows that the foreman testified to the judge that the GJ had voted on the second 2 count true bill, but this is not in dispute. They are trying to say that this is sufficient for a valid indictment. But they are being deliberately disingenuous, because they know that this does not satisfy the Gaither requirement. They are desperately trying to conflate the GJ vote with the preparation of a valid indictment that is consistent with Gaither.
All your ranting about voting by the GJ is irrelevant nonsense.
There is no dispute that the GJ voted and returned a true bill.
The issue is that the subsequent indictment document that was prepared and submitted to the court was not in conformity with Gaither.
It is defective. That is why the judge specifically ordered Halligan to submit a brief about the effect of Gaither in this case. The government submitted a brief that was laughably absurd trying to invoke other irrelevant precedents to show that Gaither was not relevant.
They are desperately flailing because they know the indictment is doomed.
Aparently I have to correct myself again – because you make so many errors. and I keep asuming they are correct.
Gaither Vs. the US is a DC circuit case – it is nothing more than sugestive outside of the DC circuit,
this case is being tried in the Eastern District of VA. So gaither is not controling precident in EDVA.
The gaither case was not appealed outside the DC circuit so while it MIGHT be good law in the DC circuit – there is a very strong arument that the law on correcting Indictment defects that was LATER passed by congress superceded Gaither – thought the DC courts decicded gaither on 5th amendment grounds which if upheld by the Supreme court – which has NOT addressed this issue would invalidate the DC rule.
Regardless Gaither is a DC case and a DC rule. It is not an EDVA case or an EDVA rule.
Next Judge Fitzpatrick is a “baby” magistrate judge. They are Article II judges they do not have lifetime tenure, and they generally handle minor cases and administrative matters for Article III judges.
The Article iii judge in this case has already stayed Fitzpatrick’s order.
So you are wrong about Gaither, FitzPatrick is trying to showhorn an case without precedential value into a different district,
and more recent reportiong confirms that the GJ – presided over by another magistrate judge correctly voted on the entire indictment.
There is not going to be a motion for Recusal – because Fitzpatrick will disappear soon enough.
This is not a District Court decision – Technically Fitzpatrick is a member of the executive branch not the Judiciary.
He is little different from an immigration judge.
It is entirely possible that Trump can just fire him.
Fitzpatrick’s decision has about as much import as that of your local district magistrate.
While technically a judge he is NOT an article III judge. His role is primarily administrative.
Fitzpatrick’s order was stayed by Nachmanoff who will receive briefs from both sides tomorow.
It is unlikely there will be a quick ruling.
Nachmanoff is a Biden appointee, but has not had consequential involvement in a politically charged case.
So, what you’re saying is that Comey is as guilty as sin!
“This is wild stuff !!!”
Correct and you should always assume when you are sprayed with “wild stuff” that someone is blowing smoke up your ass.
There was no collusion delusion – it should not have taken you too many brain cells to figure out that from the start.
Even before any of the evidence. There was never a good reason for Trump to collude with Russia.
The Hunter Biden laptop was real. It is beyond the ability of any nation state to manufacture gigabytes of fraudulent data in a way that is impossible to detect
The case against Comey is not dead it is just going to drag out for a long time – that was always going to be true.
Comey will inevitably win, but only because there are no honest left wing nuts.
The cases against James and Schiff are fine.
They will hinge on facts – not who investigates or who was hired.
Fanni Willis hired her boyfriend to prosecute Trump and lied about it under oath.
He was fired, she was removed from the case. Thje case will eventually die – but not because of Willis’s misconduct, but because there never was a case.
There are some very specific types of misconduct on the part of law enforcement that can get a case tossed.
But these are not common. Why ? Because criminal cases are about the law and facts, not about the prosecutors.
Like Willis Haligan can be replaced if there really is an issue – though only the looniest left read between the lines of the law produces and issue.
Unlike Willis – Halligan’s cases will continue to be prosecuted if she is removed – because they are not bogus.
You say an MD GJ is investigating Pulte – that is what GJ’s DO, they INVESTIGATE.
And that is why the Comey judge is full of schiff.
With few exceptions the conduct of INVESTIGATIONS is outside of the jurisdiction of a judge.
All exceptions involve violations of constitutional rights.
There is a constitutional right requiring indictment for a federal crime.
There is no constitutional right to be prosecuted within the Statute of limitations.
As we saw in NYC – legislatures can poke holes in the SOL just wide enough to fit Trump through.
Congress has provided that fatal defects in indictments extend the SOL by 6 months.
There are not rights involved.
I have no idea whether there is any merit to the investigation of Pulte – nor does it matter with Regard to Schiff of James.
If the facts show a crime Pulte is irrelevant.
Generally evidence that is improperly obtained can only be supressed if there were no legal means to obtain it.
Even when the courts block illegally obtained evidence – and
the fruit of the poisnonous tree” when prosecutors can find a legal route to the same evidence it is allowed back in.
Lawfare and weaponization of DOJ are when investigators and prosecutors persue investigations and cases against enemies that have no legal merit.
Trump was impeached for seeking to investigate Biden corruption in Ukraine – aren’t you left wing nuts embarrassed as we find that it turns out the FBI was burying MULTIPLE CHS reports that Biden’s dealings in Ukraine were corrupt.
The lawfare against Trump backfired – not because Trump was Biden’s enemy, but because large portions of the public could not see criminal conduct in what was being claimed.
Schiff and James committed Fraud on their mortgages – people easily understand that.
It does not matter whether they are prosecuted by Mother Theresa, or Satan himself.
What matters is whether they committed mortgage fraud.
The records of their fraud are PUBLIC RECORDS. Absolutely anyone on the planed could legally refer those for prosecution.
You will never get that evidence supressed.
“Apparently, they hired “unauthorized” individuals to assist with the investigations and, by their participation, could have “tainted” the cases ”
You have made a claim – but not provided evidence. Again Willis hired her boyfriend to prosecute Trump. Willis and Wade might end up going to jail, but the GA case against Trump is now with a different prosecutor. It will likely be dropped for lack of a crime.
But efforts to kill it because of Willis and Wades conduct failed.
What is relevant in a criminal prosecution is the crime not the prosecutor. Not the prosecutors motives.
“being made against Schiff and James as part of Trump’s revenge agenda.”
Assuming Trump is going after James and Schiff for revenge – that is a reason to scrutinize the case.
It is not a basis for dismissing.
To dismiss you must establish there is no case.
The fraud is self evident.
Maybe a left wing nut judge will dismiss, But the apeals courtsw will b**ch slap them to reinstate.
“So, Trump’s own DOJ and FBI is now investigating misconduct by the people in his own administration who are responsible for the bogus mortgage fraud cases.”
I beleive you are incorrect – MD is a state GJ.
But whether you are correct or not – so what ?
I expect DOJ to prosecute James and Willis for their fraud.
If others in the Trump administration committed crimes – eitehr ijndependently or in the prosecution of James and Schiff I expect DOJ to prosecute those.
That is how blind justice is suppose to work.
“A total fiasco, where the DOJ is actually being forced to investigate the misconduct of senior officials in the Trump administration.”
While you are incorrect about what is occurring and you can not FORCE DOJ to investigate anyone.
Even if you were correct – so what ?
Isn’t DOJ supposed to follow the law not politics ?
If your claims were true – you would be proving that Bondi is one of the most honest AG’s the US has ever had.
“It must be astoundingly bad if Trump’s DOJ is forced to investigate.
You really couldn’t make this up if you tried !!!!!!”
Of course you could. Those of you on the left make up pretty much everything.
When EVER have you been right about any of this nonsense ?
Does anyone here believe that this rant by John Say makes any rational sense ??
Do you think this weird stream of consciousness rambling about disconnected and irrelevant thoughts is the product of a sound mind ??
John Say is a mentally impaired crank, who has been haunting this blog for years with his outlandish comments.
Most of us have learned to simply ignore him.
ATS as always NEVER trust the left wing press.
While the Judge here is way out over his skis – even Comey’s lawyers were not ready to support all of what the Judge was claiming.
And Comey’s lawyers did NOT raise this issue – the Judge did.
The reporting is wither deliberately ommitting or unaware of the actual Facts.
First – the entire GJ voted on a 3 count indictment – they returned a true bill on 2 counts and no true bill on one count.
There is absolutely no disagreement that this happened.
This is important because the claim that there is no indictment is KNOWN FALSE by the well documented actual facts even as the Judge is addressing this.
There is allegedly a rule that the AUSA should rewrite the indictment with only the two counts that were returned as a true bill and that the GJ should then revote on only those.
What the Judge is currently alleging – and BTW he ALONE is alleging this, is that did not occur.
Assuming the Judge is absolutely correct – this is a DEFECT not a failure to indict.
There is ZERO disagreement that the full GJ voted to indict on 2 of the 3 counts in the original indictment.
AS One attorney noted – one of the Attorney’s on the Trump case in GA – the GJ can write out the indictgment on Tissue paper vote on it, and the foreman sing it and the indictment is valid.
Further Haligan can Cross out the count that was returned as no true bill and present that as the FINAL indictment and it would be valid.
The CLAIM by the Judge that the final indictment presented to him was not voted on by the entire GJ is doubly false, But even if the indictment in the final form – with count that was not approved removed was not voted on by the entire GJ – this whole mess falls into what is normally in law called scriveners errors. It is completely inconsequential and meaningless.
As the GA Trump attorney pointed out – there were myriads of similar errors in the indictments that Willis got in GA – the printed indictment publsihed by Wilson and brought to the court had numerous changes from the indictment the GJ voted on. The numbering was different, the paragraphing was different, some words were changed. The differences between the GJ voted on indictment and the one presented to the court were more substantial than in the Comey case. Trump’s defense team did not challenge the indictment on these grounds, nor did Comey’s attorney’s because it is a big fat zero losing argument.
The actual legal requirement aparently is that the GJ vote on the indictment, and that it is then printed up and signed by the GJ formeman and AUSA and that inconsequential differences between what the GJ voted on and what the Foreman and AUSA sign are legally meaningless – SCRIVNERS ERRORS. Unless there is a difference of substance – which no one is actually alleging.
The indictment presented to the judge with two counts and the 3 count indictment that the GJ absolutely voted on approving two counts and rejecting the 3rd are not different in any substantative way that would require anything beyond the AUSA and Foremans signature.
The above assumes that everything reported by the MSM is correct.;
But Some sources are now reporting that the above is NOT what happened. Or more accurately that the whole GJ actually voted a 2nd time on the full indictment without the 3rd charge that they did not approve and that after that vote the Foreman and the AUSA signed off on an indictment that is EXACTLY the same as what the court received.
I noted before that Trial judges do not normally engage in this kind of schiff because GJ’s are supervised by ANOTHER federal judge.
What is coming out now is that there are actually TWO judges aside from this District court judge involved.
That there was a magistrate judge running the GJ – and it is his job to supervise the GJ and to deal with questions of law and procedure.
That similar to a trial while the Prosecution is supposed to get the law and the process correct the Formal legal responsibility for the law and process is on the magistrate judge running the GJ not the AUSA. While Haligan has some responsibility to get this right the PRIMARY responsibility rests with the Magistrate judge running the GJ.
But it gets WORSE still for this District court Judge – He has his own Magistrate Judge who is ALSO responsible for reviewing all of this kind od stuff before hearings like this.
There is a REMOTE possibility that the allegation that the GJ did not vote on the indictment in its perfect final form is true.
But the ONLY person that has raised that claim is the District Court judge.
Comey’s lawyers did not raise that claim.
The GJ magistrate judge essentially signed off on the indictment.
The District Courts magistrate judge reviewed all of this and raised no issues.
ONLY the District court judge is making this claim – a claim that even if true is STILL only a defect and a failure to indict.
All the claims that this case is dead are complete BS. Even if the claims that ONLY are coming from the District Court Judge proved to be true.
But other sources are reporting that this is all entirely nonesense, that the Bill exactly as presented to the District Court Judfge was voted on in its current form by the full GJ and that the AUSA and foreman then signed it and that the GJ magistrate judge and possibly the District Judges Magistrate judge were all aware of this. And that there are transcripts of all of this.
That DOJ was caught on there heels by the Judge in court and unprepared because Comey’s lawyers had NOT raised this challenge so they were not prepared with transcripts etc to prove that the final bill as presented to the District Judge was voted on by the entire GJ in its current form.
They were not prepared – because no one ever raises these kinds of stupid claims.
Defense attorney;s do not raise challenges like this because evn if they arre correct – they will lose because scriveners errors are not even considered a defect, much less a basis to undo an indictment.
Generally Defense attorney’s do not go on fishing expeditions challenging judges under circumstances that they will lose and poison their relationship with the judge at the very start.
This is another case – like the myriads of other left wing legal claims that is much ado about nothing.
If this judge throws out the indictment, based on the facts that even this judge accepts as true – he will be reversed easily on appeal.
And legal experts that have a track record of getting things right confirm that.
The more likely scenario is that the judge is provided with the records and transcripts and all of this dies quietly
Except that idiots like you will be claiming for months that Comey was not really properly indicted.
Regardless, the reporting on this is incompelete and false.
I am going to correct myself on some errors in previous posts.
I made a mistake that I should have known better, and assumed because you and the left wing press are ranting about this that atleast some of the facts you were presenting were true.
Silly me. Reminder to self ALWAYS check idiotic claims by left wing nuts before assuming that they have ANY of the facts correct.
While my legal analysis is likely correct for the facts that YOU alleged.
Those facts have proven FALSE.
The indictment was prepared properly, the GJ voted not once buy TWICE to indict Comey.
The 2nd time they voted on the same indictment that has been presented to the District court.
This is a dead issue.
Not only should I have known better than to rely on ANY facts alleged by left wing nuts or the MSM.
But as I noted in my prior posts – GJ’s are overseen by Federal Judges.
I further forgot that District judges do not typically hold hearings on matters than have not also been reviewed by their magistrate judge.
So two other judges – one of whom was responsible for making sure this was done right oversaw this prior to its hitting the district judges desk.
All my analysis below is correct – but for a set of facts that YOU alleged but are NOT what happened.
“A total fiasco . . .”
Then there’s the proper interpretation:
By investigating two of its own, the Trump administration is following the lead of Lady Justice.
Now that Trump has released the Epstein Files, will he release the Kraken Files as well?
Or at least throw Sidney Powell a bone by giving her an unconditional Pardon?
The newly discovered Burn Bags of James Comey are a God send for Trump and the Georgia cases.
Indeed, for the moment the Kraken seems to be in the Bag(s).
ʻRelease the Krakenʼ a catchphrase for unfounded conspiracy theory, trends on Twitter.
The conspiracy stems from a Fox Business appearance last Friday by a lawyer making claims about the election results.
By: Davey Alba ~ Nov. 17, 2020 Updated Nov. 23, 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/technology/release-the-kraken-a-catchphrase-for-unfounded-conspiracy-theory-trends-on-twitter.html
The Kraken: What is it and why has Trump’s ex-lawyer released it?
Reality Check team and BBC Monitoring ~ November 27th 2020
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55090145
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Congressman James Comer, Congressman James Jordan, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congressman Tim Burchett, … Republicans et.al.
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE KRAKEN FILES NOW !!!
Dear Prof Turley,
re Top Secret
The DoJ does not comment about ‘ongoing investigations’ .. . and ongoing investigations are the very things you/we want to DoJ to comment about.
Furthermore, the POTUS can classify, or de-classify, anything. According to President Trump, often by just ‘thinking about it’. .. which SC Jack Smith found out the hard way.
In this way, the president, any president, controls the flow of information between the government and its citizens.. . Congress, by their own admission, has little to do with it.
For example, take the recent ‘Epstein Files Transparency Act’ (H.R. 4405). Despite overwhelming congressional support (534 yea/1 nay) for the Act, Speaker Johnson has some concerns: “It jeopardizes future federal investigations, and we have national security concerns regarding classified information,” Johnson said of the bill.
*and so it goes . .. ““In rare circumstances, Congress has chosen to enact laws that limit its own ability to access specific types of information,” the Congressional Oversight Manual says. The manual adds that “commonly cited statutory restrictions on oversight…relate to foreign intelligence activities.”
https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/national-security-blocks-epstein?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Unbephreakinglievable
No truer word was ever spoken.
…”THEY have infected EVERYTHING”…
OT
Every person at the Dick Cheney funeral should be arrested and prosecuted for egregious WMD fraud, gross malfeasance, and treason.
yep. Including George W himself. I call him, the clueless Presidency. Those 8 years of GWB presidency should be called Cheney-proxy presidency.
In attendance: The Deep Deep State “Swamp” and profiteering perpetrators of the 20-year War-For-Nothing-But-Israel in Iraq and Afghanistan—7,000 American dead—after it and Mossad conducted 9/11 by controlled demolition for nothing but the benefit of Israel, which was recently completed, having come full circle. Alas, where is the WMD?
Ya, you go with that. Libelous Jew hating moron.
I enjoy the freedom of speech, which shall not be abridged; the truth cannot be libel, which, incidentally, is constitutionally protected; 9/11 was a controlled demolition event; there never were any WMD; I support the vigorous defense of Israel, and Jesus Christ, who is Jewish, is my personal lord and savior.
9/11 was a controlled demolition event
Worked as a blaster for years. That demolition of the towers would require ripping out drywall, carpet, etc to place charges, bus lines, etc. Remove the debris from the building, carry repair materials in, paint, etc.
It would take months – all while nobody saw the activity who was in the building whether office workers, janitors or security. And the patching, new paint, new carpet would all be unnoticeable when workers returned to work in their offices the next day.
Damn you morons continuing this BS are so abjectly stupid!
For crying out loud God sake!
“I call him, the clueless Presidency. ”
You (and others) may thereby be giving him more of a pass than he deserves. Do you really think all of that misconduct on his watch was simply the result of cluelessness on his part, or do you think (as I suspect) he might have been bribed, blackmailed, or otherwise coerced to get and stay out of the way of Cheney and the rest of those Deep State @h013$?
Can one of the attorneys on this blog please explain why Jack Smith would not be personally liable for his actions if he was unlawfully appointed special prosecutor as was adjudicated in Florida. I thought qualified immunity against personal liability for government officials applied only to lawful acts by lawful officials. If he was unlawfully appointed, how could any of his actions taken as special prosecutor been lawful?
Personally liable for his actions, you say. If Jack Smith had pulled this on the leaders of government in England, the royal monarchy, as recently as two or three centuries ago, he would have been found to have committed high treason in a bill of attainder, forfeited all property, suffered a corruption of blood and could not bequeath, and would have been Drawn and Quartered. Jack Smith might have been deterred by these consequences.
It would have been the elected Parliament doing that. The same elected Parliament that ordered war be waged on their countryman Colonists.
The British Monarchy has stayed out of such matters since Parliament lopped off the head of the last Royal Monarch who decided he, not the elected Parliament, was the government.
I believe that Congress actually past a bill recently to provide a path for their suing the Special Counsel. Down side it would be our own tax dollars.
In other news “ House Democrat Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick charged with stealing $5M in Covid aid funds“.
I wonder how often she said “no one is above the law”?
Margot,
For the assist!
Grand jury indicts Florida Dem Rep Cherfilus-McCormick for allegedly stealing $5 million from FEMA
“The indictment accuses Cherfilus-McCormick, her brother Edwin Cherfilus, and several co-defendants of stealing the funds, laundering the proceeds, and using it to fund her 2021 congressional campaign.”
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/grand-jury-indicts-florida-democratic-lawmaker-allegedly-stealing-5-million
On the street it’s called cutting corners. In a courtroom it’s called embezzlement.
My worry is that the 92 year old (DOB: September 17, 1933) Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley will Quit or Croak before they GET THE JOB DONE (Drain the Swamp).
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley leaves open possibility of 2028 run
U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, currently the longest-serving senator in Washington, D.C., is leaving the door open for another reelection bid in 2028.
Speaking to the news media on Tuesday, the 91-year-old Republican told reporters to “ask me the question in a couple of years,” saying he would consider the same factors he has “through several re-elections, and that is family considerations and whether or not I can do the job.”
By: Robin Opsahl ~ August 26, 2025
https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/briefs/u-s-sen-chuck-grassley-leaves-open-possibility-of-2028-run/
Sen. Chuck Grassley, Congressman James Comer, Congressman James Jordan, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, Congressman Tim Burchett, … Republicans et.al.
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
!!! RELEASE THE BURN BAGS NOW !!!
So, Smith got the phone records of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and came up with . . . nothing. There was no coup. There was no insurrection. Nothing but a bunch of TDS delusions that continue to this day.
So, Smith got the phone records of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and came up with . . . nothing. There was no coup. There was no insurrection.
Just one more chapter of Washington DC Democrat lawyer police state fascism to deprive American Republicans of their civil rights through color of law. Today’s chapter involving Obama and then Biden’s Jack Smith
Does anyone else see a trend and central theme here, with these Washington DC based Democrat lawyers over the last sixteen years?
Professor Turley certainly doesn’t see it. Perhaps he can talk with Senator/Dr. Rand Paul – he is also an ophthalmologist as well as a Senator.
Obama’s Telecom share plan & Dick Cheney’s water boarding were some tools used. But for who? Terrorists or US citizens?
“But for who? Terrorists or US citizens?”
The parties you mention didn’t seem to make any distinction by the criteria you cite. “Targets of opportunity” seems to cover the waterfront for them.
If McCarthy did nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about, or so the refrain goes when the Republicans sic investigators on private citizens.
As a public figure McCarthy should be giving full transparency to his participation in the events of Jan 6th. That includes everyone on that emergency phone tree that was in effect while the Capitol was invaded and sacked and all the politicians in Trump’s inner circle were circling the wagons.
Game, set and match!
I am old enough to remember when the left was outraged when US law enforcement overstepped. Remember the Church committee?
If McCarthy did nothing wrong then he has nothing to worry about, or so the refrain goes when the Republicans sic investigators on private citizens.
Now why are you suddenly saying that? While in just the past week you were shrieking your rage when private citizens Comey, Brennan, et al and all the Democrats with ties to Epstein AFTER he was a known sexual predator came under investigation?
Because the rule is Nobody But Democrats Is Above The Law? Democrat Double Standards?
Game, set, and match!
The truth of the “events” of Jan 6th when there were 274 plainclothes FBI agents and 26 informants at the Capitol:
Rabble:
Everyone who says that imagines they’d be the same way, right up until they get their own subpoena.
It matters little that McCarthy’s records were sought, it’s *how* they were sought that is at issue. Playing weasel-word games to get around the inconvenient fact that politicians have certain extra privileges regarding privacy (that they voted for themselves), by merely not stating “any way indicate that the information sought related to a member of Congress” is scum-suck behavior, and just shows how little regard they have for their own rules when it benefits them.
And I know, based on my last line, you’ll bring up Trump, to which I early rebut: What rules does Trump have little regard for? You must be specific, and take into account the Supremacy Clause.
They were fishing for anything. No matter if it was right or wrong.
It’s a shame the judge didn’t even question it.
Um… judges do what is “right” according to laws and procedures. How do you know he didn’t question it?
“judges do what is “right” according to laws and procedures.”
That is what judges are *supposed* to do. The current crop of activist scumbag judges (of whom I have no doubt you are a fan) don’t come anywhere near to that ideal.
DustOff,
Yes, they were fishing for anything and came up with nothing.
Phone records are not protected under 4A. Also McCarthy was under investigation for his participation in the attempted coup. That is completely valid.
What coup, are you talking about the deep state interference in the election or the mail in ballot harvesting process? Just curious Martha…
Have you been paying attention to Tulsi’s documents released?!
Absolutely correct Marty. Trump tried to overthrow an election. It was sedition.
What the politicians who are currently suggesting that Trump’s orders are illegal and need not be followed is the definition of sedition. Look it up!
No it is not.
Rabble:
As an active duty, I sure as hell am glad none of those scum-sucks are anywhere near a chain of command. I’ve seen commanders get relieved from their boats for less than blatantly telling servicemen to disregard orders.
Why is Marty’s avatar the same as yours? Is it unique to your address or haven’t figured it out yet.
Anonymous says:
“Why is Marty’s avatar the same as yours?”
You shouldn’t have brought that to “it’s” attention.😂
This seems to be a WordPress generated site, which uses Gravatar to generate avatars for commenters. Gravatar creates unique avatars based on the users email address. If the user is anonymous (hasn’t provided an email address) then it uses a default avatar (for this site its apparently https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/?s=32&d=retro&r=pg). As far as I can see, there is no use of IP addresses involved.
But looking over the avatars on this page, I see some anonymous users with avatars different than that (like yours – anon@11:43AM ?) My best guess is that those anonymous users (with unique avatars) HAVE provided email addresses when they comment, but have chosen to display the user name ‘Anonymous’.
I also see at least one non-anonymous user (devil in the details) with the default avatar. I don’t have a good explanation for that. Maybe their email address isn’t valid or they have an actual facebook or WordPress/Gravatar account that they’ve somehow configured differently.
There also might be some complex interaction between facebook/jetpack, wordpress/gravatar accounts and add-blockers that comes into play.
(I’m no expert, but was curious about the avatars as well)
ref: https://docs.gravatar.com/sdk/images/
Hey Marty… don’t queer our efforts to distract from Jack Smith’s police state fascism by going too far with the old insurrection/sedition angle. That has repeatedly failed for all of us as well as Jack Smith and cost us the last election.
You keep this up and the MAGA crowd will demand that Trump start investigating which of our Democrats were involved in the insurrection/sedition attack on Trump and his family in the White House just a few weeks before the J6 insurrection/sedition.
Proof?
Attempted coup? Unarmed people trespassed, after being instructed to “respectfully and patriotically” make their voices heard. If Trump were really attempting a coup, he would not have asked Pelosi to call up the national guard. Of note, the only person killed in that demonstration was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed combat veteran who was in the process of crawling through a window. The guard standing behind could have easily stopped her by grabbing her ankles. Her husband has been awarded just under $5M for her wrongful death. In this case it appears that a “coup” is in the eyes of the beholder.
Do you want to see what an actual attempted coup looks like?
Democratic Lawmakers Call on Military Members, Intelligence Community to ‘Refuse Illegal Orders’
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/democratic-lawmakers-call-on-military-members-intelligence-community-to-refuse-illegal-orders-5946997?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge
Can you point me towards the info you use to claim 4A does not apply to phone records? If it doesn’t why would a subpoena be needed to obtain them?
Heerreessss Marty: Back with his demands that there was actually an attempted coup – it’s just that the FBI that could track down every granny back home after taking a selfie on the Senate lawn somehow or other couldn’t find any evidence of that.
What would we do without Marty – famed Internet Constitutional Lawyer to tell us what amendments are NOT protected from fraudulent Democrat police state fascists like Jack Smith.
In other words, Professor Turley, here’s the unspoken in print:
Your fellow Democrat lawyers and brother members of the Washington DC Bar Association are police state fascists who will happily eliminate the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of Americans who are Republicans they hope to destroy. And they will happily feloniously deprive both Republican politicians and ordinary citizens of their civil rights by color of law.
Here’s some of the names of the unindicted police state fascist Democrat lawyers, right beside yours in the membership rolls of your bar association:
Attorney General Merrick Garland
Attorney General Loretta Lynch
Attorney General Sally Yates
Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco
FBI Director James Comey
FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Director Andrew McCabe
FBI Director Christopher Wray
Jack Smith, starting with his actions under Obama’s direction back in 2012
And that’s just the very short list of names from the unindicted police state fascist Democrat felons who are your fellow members in good standing of the Washington DC Bar Association.
Professor Turley: are you starting to see a criminal and police state fascist trend among your fellow Democrat lawyers also making their living in the political world?
There are several fundamental problems.
Products are designed with “lawful access” as a design criterion. I cannot think of any Constitutionally legitimate reason to force compromised designs on people.
Additionally, data generated should be transferred to the consumer after the service period has ended and the bill is paid. The consumer can delete or archive as they please.
If your personal data does not exist it cannot be abused.
Essentially our products are infested by intelligence agencies and law engorcement. It’s the modern, digital version of a Third Ammendment violation if you think about it with a clear head and an appetite for liberty.
I cannot think of any Constitutionally legitimate reason .. are you a constitutional lawyer?
Damn, here is the idiot again. Does nothing but nastily reply to every comment every day.
What a whiner. Like a nasty child idiot.
Compared to the Democrats last figurehead of a Constitutional Scholar, yes why yes he is hands down!
Are you even a lawyer – much less a constitutional lawyer – that gives you something more than troll legitimacy to claim what he posted is wrong?
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
Look up douchebaggery, you will find your profile as foundation.
Does my avatar appear as yours? The avatar is unique to YOU.
Are you writing to yourself anon?
Legitimacy? You mean, legitimately. And you’re welcome. How’s that for discourse?
sealioning? he just made that up. been working for days on it. Must have used himself as the model.
Was AT&A when they told them NO for the records.
“intelligence agencies and law engorcement.”
Typo or intentional? I kind of like it: “engorcement” = “enforcement” + “engorgement” 🙂
There is an old maxim that says, “The methods used to achieve power are the methods used when power is achieved.” Assuming the converse, it is reasonable to assume that the Democrats are no strangers to using phone call information to map out a type of informational hierarchy about their opponents.
Given that, there is every reason to believe they are still using this technique in their strongholds (states) and will do so again if they regain national power, it is suggested that congressional leaders begin using burner phones. It is just another, and inexpensive, form of privacy.
That was much too easy – just required a corrupt Special Counsel.
As I understand it, he was NEVER a legitimately positioned “Special Counsel.” He was Biden/Obamas hit man anointed by Merrick Garland.
Why are these conspirators still walking around free? They should be arrested and prosecuted for their criminal activities. At the very least, these corrupt POS should be stripped of their sovereign immunity and be held accountable in both criminal and civil courts. Think of the millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars that have been wasted on this political stunt.
Why are these conspirators still walking around free? Thankfully because we have laws that protect the innocent, or until PROVEN guilty.
Locking them up without conviction would make the USA a fascists government.
Why are these conspirators still walking around free? Thankfully because we have laws that protect the innocent, or until PROVEN guilty.
That’s a nice way of expressing your gratitude that not a single one of your celebrated Democrat police state fascists has ever been indicted for their felonies, and thus is still walking free.
Not a single one of Obama’s minions who followed his direction to go to and repeatedly perjure themselves in Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts about the felonious Clinton/Obama “Russia Dossier”.
Certainly not Jack Smith after he followed Obama’s direction as the 2012 reelection campaign was about to begin, by changing the law and lying to a judge and jury to deprive Governor Bob McDonnell of his civil rights by color of law.
Democrats have been cheerleading Democrat Soviet-style police state fascism since the very first days of Obama’s term. While – like their street thugs in Antifa – they claim those they are stripping of their civil rights are actually the fascists.
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows that mentally ill person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing it instead as as the thoughts and actions of another person who they despise and hate.
Hey I thought that you get arrested with a warrant or witnessed criminal activity by a LEO, jailed, arraigned before the court and then tried and/or plead out.
There is ample evidence to prove a seditious conspiracy against these criminals, how many federal laws have to be broken before the DOJ gets stands up and does the right thing for our Nation?
Your evidence is not the same as a judge’s evidence. Criminals? Can’t be a criminal w/o a conviction.
The clock is running on any alleged offensives. So, the case is moot.
Every attempt to cover up the conspiracy and corruption is a new clock start, there will not be a get out of jail free in this coming night of the long knives.
LOL
You ever heard of the Patriot Act dumb dumb?
Smith used subpoenas. As is required. he had a legitimate reason and a court green-lighted it. Remember, no one is above the law.
Wrong; another police state fascist Democrat lie. This is the same Smith who in 2012 pretended he WAS the law to create law that he used to prosecute and eliminate Governor Bob Smith as the most dangerous opponent to Obama/Biden and their 2012 election campaign. SCOTUS threw those prosecutions out in a rare unanimous decision and stated that Smith was a “threat to our separation of powers”.
I’m neither a police, a state, or fascist, or democrat. So what’s the lie then?
And BTW, the SC wrote: “uncontrolled power of criminal prosecutors is a threat to our separation of powers,” It was about the McDonnel case, not B. Smith.
I’m neither a police, a state, or fascist, or democrat. So what’s the lie then?
Okay, I’ll jump in here and bite, because I’m not one of those things either, although your attempt to justify this police state fascism leaves you looking a little suspicious.
Start by assuring us that a prosecutor applying for a search warrant can deliberately choose to leave out pertinent and almost certainly exculpatory evidence as Smith did in refiling for those warrents.
When Obama’s AGs and FBI Directors, left out pertinent information in their applications for FISA surveillance warrants, were those omissions in effect a lie to that court?
When Jack Smith deliberately left out the fact that he was going after sitting Senators, Congressmen, former Attorney Generals – over 430 in all: Was that in effect a lie to the court and that judge?
(Once again – how convenient – the very same Judge Boasberg who facilitated Obama’s AGs and FBI Directors getting those fraudulent warrants by omissions and repeated acts of perjury!)
If Smith was NEVER approved by the Congress as a Special Counsel as found in Cannon’s federal court, then he NEVER had the legal authority to issue subpoenas, investigate or pursue any of this. That should be the fundamental question and why Judge Boasberg would allow or approve any of it reeks of a partisan activist scum bag.
What might or might not have happened in 2012 is not relevant.
So says the anon. That case was decided in 2014, not in 2012.
Oh, don’t you just WISH that Jack Smith’s long running record of Democrat police state fascism on the direction of Democrat presidents seeking reelection and doing so by deceiving courts to deprive Americans of their civil rights through color of law wasn’t relevant!
Governor Bob McDonnell, not Governor Bob Smith.
McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. (2016)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-474/
So if Patel gets a conservative judge to ok a subpoena on Jeffries and Schumer you will be fine with it? How about if Trump did it to Pelosi during his first term? How about if Nixon did it? How about you stop being a contrarian weirdo.
“How about if Trump did it to Pelosi during his first term?”
How do you know that Trump didn’t do that and just buried the investigation when it went nowhere.
Also, spoiler, Nixon is dead.
Nixon lives in the hearts of Hillary and Jack Smith.
What the heck do Jeffries and Schumer have to do with the McCarthy story?
So if Patel gets a conservative judge to ok a subpoena on Jeffries and Schumer you will be fine with it?
Patel isn’t going to do that because he’s not a Democrat FBI Director like Wray, McCabe, Comey, Mueller, etc. But if Patel actually DOES do the same thing as Smith, Garland, Comey, Mueller, Smith etc actually DID DO to get similarly fraudulent warrants on Jeffries and Schumer, no we are certainly not okay with that. Definitely not okay with that.
So much for your hopeful hypothetical question fumbling around in hopes of finding a moral equivalency to Jack Smith’s ongoing criminality.
Which leaves the original question: unless you’re okay with it, why are you desperately deflecting to defend Jack Smith depriving Americans of their civil rights through color of law repeatedly, going all the way back to the early days when we was working for Obama?
Sealioning:
Sealioning is a form of adolescent trolling where someone persistently demands answers to insincere questions to provoke a response, often pretending to seek a civil debate while actually trying to exhaust or frustrate others with no intention of real discourse. This behavior is characterized by a facade of politeness and a refusal to acknowledge previous answers. Often used as a tactic by whining Democrats in online forums and podcasts
“He had a legitimate reason, which i refuse to explain, so I’ll just claimed he indeed had one”
It is contrary to statute for such a subpoena to be issued – one requiring non-disclosure of the subpoena – when demanding records of Congressional members.
“were given to Jack Smith after a separate demand that did not identify him…” So where’s the problem, his privacy was respected. Much ado about nothing. You silly Reps.
Huh? The person processing the request did not know. The person making the request new. And anyone they shared it with. Or leaked it to.
Huh? what? Your comment is garbled. Makes no sense.
He’s just over excited about commenting here.
You said his privacy was respected. Turned over to Jack Smith minions. If a legit law enforcement activity then OK. But not respected.
You silly Democrat police state fascists post as though you believe multiple things that are in fact not true.
1. You believe you have actually earned credibility here.
2. You believe if you simply re-word things regarding Jack Smith’s actions, then suddenly what you claim must be true.
3. You believe serial lying will change minds here.
4. You believe you can restore Jack Smith to being one of those Democrats who is above the law – a mere nine years after SCOTUS declared him to be a threat to our Democracy.
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator of those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or persons. This involves the perpetrator lying, denying events, and other methods used with the intent to have their victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational. Within personal relationships, it is a form of psychological abuse and torture. The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: lying, blame shifting, countering, trivializing and withholding.
McCarthy’s identity as Speaker was hidden to avoid scrutiny by AT&T. Poor job on reading comprehension. Outstanding job on intellectual dishonesty.
SCARY, SCARY STUFF!!!!!
Scary? Your response is SCARY.
Obviously from your response, you enjoy living in an echo chamber.