« FBI Counter Intelligence, Ever Viligant. by J | Main | 'Biden ‘is just lost,’ says Obama’s White House doctor" Washington Examiner »

19 August 2020

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

blue peacock

Larry,

Do you think this plea deal matches the felony crime? An American's liberty was stripped by a secret court on the basis of false evidence.

Deap

Oy!

JohninMK

After the Supreme Court the FISC is probably the most important in the US as it is a Star Chamber, the Court that does not allow defendants to know they are being tried let alone defend themselves. This in a real legal system gives it a special responsibility to take extra steps to make sure that it is being told the truth.

That a senior Government attorney felt that he was safe, in presumably following orders as he is unlikely to have made this up for himself, in blatantly falsifying a key document talks volumes i.e. lying to the Court.

If he is not now made an example of, but instead gets a 'Wolfe' type punishment, it will inevitably impact the credibility of the FISC as all will know the revised parameters.

How on earth this was allowed to happen but the irony is that the head judge of the FISC is the one overseeing this case. If it is he that lets off Clinesmith with a slap on the wrist punishment it cannot be blamed on another, perhaps non FISC related judge, it is he who is damaging one of the fundamental underpinnings of his own Court.

I note that he has given himself until the 10th December, carefully after the election, to make his decision.

Larry Johnson

Blue Peacock
Yes. I think the plea deal included Clinesmith's agreement to provide testimony regarding who knew about the CIA email. Clinesmith was not a mastermind nor a leader in this endeavor. He was a water carrier. This conviction hurts him in a big way. His career as a lawyer is over.

Deap

Nonsense, his career is not over. MSNBC or CNN will always have a place for him as a distinguished insider pundit.

He just can't ever practice law again, too bad. But the real money is at MSNBC or CNN. And he obviously was a lousy lawyer so good riddance to him and his ilk.

/s

Jim

Thank you very much Larry.

When Durham went out of his way, [along with Barr], to let IG Horowitz know that the IG was in error; this is precisely among reasons why, i.e., what we learned from Clinesmith Information.

Horowitz, in error: "we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened,” Durham stated in writing the day Horowitz IG report published Dec. 9, 2019.

The Information [indictment without grand jury] of Clinesmith make perfectly clear exactly why Durham and Barr called out Horowitz:

Crossfire Hurricane team, led by Comey and McCabe, and they, supervised by then AG Lynch and DAG Yates -- The CH Team in August 2016 possessed the Carter Page material, prima facie evidence: showing Page status and role and historical status and role with CIA.

And, as Durham told Horowitz and the world Dec. 9: "our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S." [Makes me wonder if Sir Kim Darroch etc. has been interviewed.]


https://www.gov.uk/government/people/kim-darroch


https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/statement-us-attorney-john-h-durham


I remain intrigued by the ongoing enigma: IF [because] FISAs #1 #2 #3 went through -- hiding the Page CIA history; THEN: what caused FBI in June 2017 to seek information they already had. And, why was Clinesmith tasked.

Durham's December 9 rebuke of Horowitz may among many other things be saying: deeming Clinesmith a Patsy is not going to happen?

Durham told Horowitz, essentially, that the IG was in error by failing to discover -- as Horowtiz at the time, Dec. 9, claimed in his report, that there WAS predicate to . . .

Barr and Durham told Horowitz he was dead wrong.

PS
For what it is worth, recall how the major media -- those that take the license to lie and obfuscate and confuse the public, constantly, said when Barr and Durham admonished Horowitz.

This, from our lovely "paper of record" NYTimes, Dec. 9:

Headline: [Barr and Durham Publicly Disagree With Horowitz Report on Russia Inquiry

The attorney general reprised his role as a vocal defender of President Trump.]]

And the story thus began:
[[WASHINGTON — When the Mueller report was made public this spring, Attorney General William P. Barr seemed to try to blunt its findings, playing them down in an early summary and defending President Trump at a news conference just before its release.

On Monday, when the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, rejected one of Mr. Trump’s main attacks on the F.B.I. and declared the bureau had adequate reason to investigate the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, Mr. Barr again stepped in, issuing a statement saying that the F.B.I. instead should not have opened the investigation in 2016.]]

Mind you, this is not some mentally retarded patient or some freak, high on Fentanyl.

The NYTimes continues:
[[Mr. Barr’s willingness to side with Mr. Trump over law enforcement, even when it contradicts his own department’s assessments, illustrates why he is one of Mr. Trump’s most important allies.

His pronouncement on Monday comes at a time when the president is on the verge of being impeached over accusations that he abused his power. And Mr. Barr’s past pronouncements that it is nearly impossible for the president to break the law when exercising his authorities have been adopted by Mr. Trump’s allies as they try to push back on the impeachment inquiry.]]

This is not from the mouth of a drug-crazed, mentally retarded person in need of help.

It's from our "paper of record" written by Katie Benner.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/barr-durham-ig-report-russia-investigation.html


The Mueller fiasco, and what preceded it, being exposed . . . how far will the exposure extend?

Or, as Charles Lipson recently asked in Real Clear Politics essay, titled, "Will the Dam Break After Clinesmith’s Plea?"

Lispson wrote: [[the Clinesmith indictment is a telling puddle where the ground should be dry. It’s a troubling omen for those who violated Carter Page’s rights, spied on the Trump campaign, and systematically abused the powerful tools of law enforcement. They are living downstream, and they should be worried.]]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/18/will_the_dam_break_after_clinesmiths_plea_143983.html

-30-

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

October 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad