If the Biden Justice Department had gone this route, it would not have been able to publish that press release and the FBI Agent’s Affidavit with 24 pages detailing the horror story of a few knuckleheads on social media doing stupid memes which would only influence stupid people. By putting it all in the Affidavit which is a publicly filed document, DOJ allowed the media to run with it in covering this matter of utmost national significance — that Twitter users thought Hillary Clinton supporters were stupid enough to believe that the law had been changed so that they could vote for Hillary by sending her name via Text Message to some unnamed destination.

Let’s hear again about the politicization of the Justice Department under Donald Trump — I’m up for a good laugh on a Friday.

: So if the company had a policy to destroy client documents under certain circumstances in the ordinary course of business, that policy predated the Enron problems, and the company was destroying Enron documents consistent with that policy, they were committing a crime BEFORE they received a subpoena for the records?

Weissmann: Yes.

Q: Following a policy for any client not in the news would be ok, but following the same policy for Enron prior to getting a subpoena sends you to jail or puts you out of business — even when you stop the moment you get the subpoena?

Weissmann: Yes.

The Supreme Court said the correct answer was “No.” //

The outer limits of this element need not be explored here because the jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA–213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly” so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA–212. //

The Supreme Court Justices who joined in rejecting “Weissman’s Law” were:

Chief Justice Rehnquist — wrote the opinion.

Justice Scalia

Justice Thomas

Justice O’Connor

Justice Kennedy

Justice Souter

Justice Stevens

Justice Ginsburg

Justice Breyer

Not a single Justice wrote a concurring opinion. Not one wrote separately to say “I agree with the outcome, but I disagree with the opinion of the Chief Justice for the following reasons….”

Every Justice REJECTED Weissmann’s view of “criminality” without hesitation.

Barr also had no valid reason to release information about the investigation into Hunter Biden. And those condemning Barr for remaining mum while the press buried the story that would have buried Biden fail to see that they are demanding of Barr what they condemned in the Obama-Biden administration.

The rule of law must not bend to the benefit of anyone. Barr knows this, and has withstood serial attempts to force his ouster, either temporarily via recusal or permanently by calls for his resignation or impeachment. Barr is neither coward nor has moderated his response, and for that he deserves our respect.

Attorney General William Barr knew months ago about investigations into Hunter Biden’s business dealings, but kept the information from spilling into public view even as President Donald Trump publicly called for investigations into the son of the president-elect.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Barr was briefed before the spring about investigations into Biden, which Biden revealed in a statement on Wednesday issued through his father’s presidential transition team. //

According to The Journal, Barr took steps to avoid providing information to Republican members of Congress about the investigations.

“Congressional Republicans are furious that Barr never told us the news, even in confidence,” a source who works on Capitol Hill told the DCNF. //

Barr also hid the existence of John Durham being appointed special counsel in the Russia-investigation probe. That was also something the American people deserved to know about. Instead, the DOJ apparently did everything they could to ensure Joe Biden wasn’t tarnished before the voting began.

All of these positions require Senate approval, and during the Obama years all of these people were in position to know a little -- or a lot -- about Joe Biden's ne'er-do-well tag-along son. //

China, Ukraine, tax fraud, corruption, and federal investigations. After a year of partisan attacks and obfuscations, media smears and derision, and Big Tech censorship and de-platformings, this week the Hunter Biden protection chamber finally collapsed. //

Nominees before the Senate will have the choice to claim ignorance, cop up to the grimy details, or try to push back. No matter which door they choose, they’ll face some very awkward questioning. //

Far from a game, there are potentially serious ramifications — and a serious investigation is needed.

The good news for Republicans — hardly an artistic bunch — is they don’t even have to write a script. The script has already been written for them.

Avatar
Zorkacus
19 hours ago
More Lucy pulling the football from Charlie Brown again.

3
−
Avatar
Robert1231 Zorkacus
7 hours ago
Lucy went home. This is just people showing you replays and hoping they can convince you that the results have changed.

Senator Rand Paul
@RandPaul
The DC U.S. Attorney today confirmed to me that they will not pursue an investigation of who is funding the thugs who attacked my wife and me and sent a DC police officer to the hospital.

If President Trump wins a second term, the delays by Durham will be forgotten before the champagne goes flat.

The question really is “What is the end game if Biden wins?”

My guess is that Durham will have one or more indictments returned in December or early January, ahead of the inauguration. I think Attorney General Barr will then accept Durham’s resignation as US Attorney and name Durham as a “Special Counsel” under DOJ Regulations in simultaneous actions. He might do the same thing with US Attorney Jensen in Missouri who seems to be investigating the actual cases brought by the Special Counsel’s Office.

The case made by the amicus counsel was thoroughly and resoundingly destroyed by a DOJ attorney Hassim Mooppan who was, in my opinion, far and away the best advocate in the proceeding. But he was backed up quite nicely by Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth Kohl, who has the distinction of being the longest serving AUSA in the Distict of Columbia US Attorney’s Office, and his words are going to carry special weight with Judge Sullivan as a result. There is simply no honest way to discount Kohl as making an appearance in the case and arguing for dismissal of the action as a political move. AUSA Kohl laid out his active role in the leadership of the office in reaching the conclusion that the case should be dismissed based on evidence uncovered in the investigation being conducted by US Attorney Jensen, which AUSA Kohl called — on the record — “FBI misconduct.” //

you need to understand the “equities” of Judge Sullivan in this dispute. He’s fighting against the idea that a district court judge like himself does not have the authority to “check” what he might see as “abuses” in the decision-making process of the Executive branch AFTER they bring matters into his court. On this issue, I suspect he’d have broad support from district court judges all over the country. They are the gatekeepers to the federal court system. By asserting a strong role for the trial judge under Rule 48, Judge Sullivan — aided by Judge Gleeson — is saying to DOJ:

“You brought this case, you occupied my time, you made representations and arguments on the record to me and asked me to do certain things in my role as a district court judge, and you don’t get to just walk away from all that without an explanation that is to my satisfaction.”

The whole speech is a subtweet of the Mueller investigation //

When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights. That makes sense. The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty. But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights. Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.

Lieutenant General Flynn, former National Security Advisor for President Trump, is a national figure. It took all of his personal resources, going broke and finally, through the good offices of a real attorney to finally come close to putting this three-year nightmare to an end (and it ain’t done yet). What do you think would happen to an old, beat down Infantry Colonel, Mike Ford or an an ancient, gray haired Navy Captain, Stu Cvrk in that position? What would happen to any of us folks in flyover country, without Flynn’s resources and national notoriety?

Some time back I wrote about government’s anti-liberty practice of “buying the pot” when going after someone who they really don’t have a case on. Essentially, the government takes advantage of its lawyers on salary, who can file subpoena after subpoena on a subject of investigation. That subject has to then reply to each of these through his lawyer, who of course charges by the billable hour.

This is exactly what happened in the Flynn case. The DC firm of Covington and Burling essentially billed him into penury, forcing him to sell his house. Once Flynn had no more money to pay them, he had no choice but to “fold.”
Again, what if this was you or me? If politically driven Federal or State prosecutors really wanted any of us, it wouldn’t be all that hard to spend us out of the game and into a coerced confession. That is why I disagree with the estimable General Flynn. His bit of promising news today, after a bitter three-year struggle, merely underscored huge issues in our Justice System.

I’ll start with a “brief” primer on the case so far, and a short introduction into a key issue raised by the Government brief. //

The Department of Justice filed an Appellate Brief in support of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by General Flynn on the same day that Judge Sullivan filed his response to the Circuit Court’s order that he do so. //

moving expeditiously by way of a Writ avoids “an unwarranted impairment” by Judge Sullivan of the Executive Branch’s “performance of its constitutional duties.”

At its core what this argument advances is the idea that when the Executive Branch, while executing its constitutional duties to see that that the laws are faithfully executed and enforced, comes across information establishing that an ongoing enforcement action is mistaken or amounts to an injustice, the Executive must move with all due haste to bring the enforcement action to an end.

The Justice Department has taken a position in a legal filing with the Judicial branch that it is no longer convinced that Gen. Flynn committed a crime, and it is certain that it would not be able to prove any such crime beyond a reasonable doubt if it attempted to do so in a trial.

Yet based on Justice Department conduct up to the date of that determination, Gen. Flynn remains a defendant in a criminal case pending in United States District Court. As such, the Justice Department has an ethical obligation – and an obligation under its own internal policies (explained later) – to move without delay to bring an end to that pending matter.

What Judge Sullivan proposes to do is an “unwarranted impairment” of the Executive Branch’s effort to fulfill its constitutional obligations to Gen. Flynn. //

The course of action proposed by Judge Sullivan is unwarranted in terms of the substance, that the process he proposes to follow is an interference with Executive branch functions in violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Undercover Huber @JohnWHuber
· May 24, 2020

CONCLUSION (1/6)

Papadopoulos was charged with §1001 false statements because he got a date wrong about when he met Mifsud, and §1519 destruction/obstruction because he got a new Facebook account (and a new cellphone.)

CONCLUSION (2/6)

Clinesmith appears to have conspired to lie to the FISA court, and destroyed/concealed a federal document under color of authority with an FBI badge, and he hasn't been charged with anything

CONCLUSION (3/6)

That's the very definition of a two tiered system of Justice.

CONCLUSION (4/6)

What's worse is that Clinesmith was part of the same SCO team that prosecuted Papadopoulos for a §1519 obstructive alteration crime he appears to have already committed himself only a month beforehand, while he was "primary FBI Attorney" on Crossfire Hurricane

CONCLUSION (5/6)

Is there a greater prosecutorial malevolence than charging someone with a crime when you surely know that they're innocent of it, and when you also know you've committed that exact same crime yourself? This belongs in an episode of The Shield with Vic Mackey

CONCLUSION (6/6)

US Attorney John Durham and AG Bill Barr now have to decide if they're going to hold anyone accountable for any of this.

And the media need to decide if they’re going to keep pretending none of this happened.

/ENDS

And there lie the denizens of the deep state, bloodied and bruised and barely breathing in the muck of the Washington swamp.

The Ohio congressman reflects on his investigation of the Russian collusion hoax following the revelation of explosive new facts in the case against Michael Flynn:

We were right about everything.

After the documents about the effort to trap him were finally revealed last week, he posted this image:

[Video pans across woods and rests on American flag flying.]

General Flynn
✔
@GenFlynn
My grandson Travis...“and JUSTICE for ALL” ⚖️❤️🙏🇺🇸

Baseless speculation abounded after the accused sex trafficker died, but criminal-justice scholars point instead to a broader suicide problem. //

Many believe that the suicide rate has continued to rise since the Justice Department’s last data dump in 2016, but we cannot be sure—because there are no data. In other words, the United States does not currently know how many inmates commit suicide in custody each year.

Of course, many might ask: Who cares? My answer has always been and continues to be the same. Preserving life is our moral and legal responsibility. //

Sandra Bland’s death resulted in significant reform of local jail suicide-prevention practices in Texas. At a minimum, perhaps Jeffrey Epstein’s death will result in renewed efforts to require an accounting of the number of people that die in jails nationwide.