web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Michael Flynn

Balls to the Wall! Has the Intrepid Sidney Powell Tapped into a Deep State Source?

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-26-at-7.18.23-AM-620x359 Balls to the Wall! Has the Intrepid Sidney Powell Tapped into a Deep State Source? sidney powell Russia Peter Strzok Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Lisa Page james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump doj democrats Campaigns Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

Photo Credit: Screenshot from video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=lXseNmo94BY

 

The extraordinarily impressive Sidney Powell represents the long suffering General Michael Flynn in a case that is looking more and more like a setup coordinated by officials at the highest level of the Obama FBI.

On Thursday, Powell submitted a new court filing in which she accuses high ranking FBI officials of orchestrating an ambush-interview on Michael Flynn, “not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity – they already had tapes of all the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn – but for the purposes of trapping him into making statement they could allege as false.”

The document alleges that then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page manipulated the original 302 report (FBI agent summary of interview with a subject), with the help of her paramour, then-FBI agent Peter Strzok. It claims that Peter Strzok, the lead agent on the case, suggested using news of the Steele Dossier as a “pretext to go interview people.” It shows that the FBI tried not to give General Flynn the impression they were interviewing him for a criminal matter. The filing also alleges that former DNI James Clapper, who will be interviewed by John Durham, alerted Washington Post writer David Ignatius to publish an article about Flynn’s conversation with then-Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

The filing  starts with the following:

For eighty seven years, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]he first duties of the officers of the law are to prevent, not to punish crime. It is not their duty to incite to or to create crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it…

It appears as if the FBI were attempting to accomplish just that. Create a crime for the sole purpose of prosecuting and punishing it. A look into the actions of top Obama administration law enforcement officials sadly supports such a conclusion. For this reason, Powell and her legal team are requesting that the case be thrown out. Although I am not a lawyer, the evidence presented in this filing looks very compelling to me.

Blogger Techno Fog, an anonymous lawyer, dug into the lengthy document and highlighted several passages which illustrate what sure look to be unethical, if not illegal, behavior on the part of federal officials.

Here are a few of them. Flynn’s lawyers claim that the FBI added “or if Kislyak described any Russian response to a request from Flynn” and  state “that question and answer do not appear in the [agent] notes, yet it was made into a criminal offense.”

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-26-at-8.06.56-AM-620x263 Balls to the Wall! Has the Intrepid Sidney Powell Tapped into a Deep State Source? sidney powell Russia Peter Strzok Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Lisa Page james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump doj democrats Campaigns Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

The filing alleges that ONA (Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon) Director Col. James Baker, “who regularly lunched with Washington Post reporter David Ignatius,” illegally leaked the transcript of Flynn’s calls to Ignatius. It also claims that Clapper called Ignatius on or before January 10, 2017 and said “words to the effect of ‘Take the kill shot on Flynn.’”

Leaking of this material is a felony, by the way.

The reference to “Halper” in the excerpt below is none other than Professor Stefan Halper, the longtime FBI informant who was enlisted to spy on the Trump campaign.

Flynn has requested records of Col. James Baker because he was Halper’s handler in the Office of Net Assessment in the Pentagon, and ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post reporter David Ignatius. The defense has requested phone records of James Clapper to confirm his contacts with Washington Post reporter Ignatius – especially on January 10, 2017, when Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of “Take the kill shot on Flynn.” It cannot escape mention that the press has long had transcripts of the Kislyak calls the government has denied to the defense.

Next, the filing notes another instance where the FBI’s 302 on Flynn doesn’t match the FBI agents’ notes.

In the agent notes, Flynn says, “I don’t remember making 4-5 calls.”

The 302 says, “Flynn remembered making four to five calls that day about this issue.”

The filing states:

Lisa Page, Special Counsel to Deputy Director McCabe, resigned; she edited Mr. Flynn’s 302 and was part of a small, high-level group that strategically planned his ambush.

Page didn’t recall whether she took part in editing the FD-302.

Upon seeing her texts, she “believes she must have seen it at some point…”

Techno Fog provides a text message exchange between Strzok and Page in which they discuss the edits that were made to the Flynn 302.

The audacious attorney appeared on “Hannity” last night and spoke to former Congressman and current Fox News contributor Jason Chaffetz (R-UT).

Powell was a federal prosecutor for ten years and she is bound to have connections inside of the Department of Justice. She has uncovered some pretty damning information to make the case that Flynn was ambushed by then FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe at the request of then FBI Director James Comey. She must have a high level source either inside the DOJ if she’s been able to obtain this kind of information. Questioned about this by Chaffetz, she of course, would not reveal her source.

Sidney Powell: We have requested his (James Clapper’s) phone records to corroborate the timing and everything about that call that we can possibly corroborate. And it is very concerning, of course it was the leak of the transcript of the call with Kislyak at the same time. And then two days after that the Ignatius story breaks, less than two days actually.

Jason Chaffetz: Sidney, so where is the evidence that that conversation and those words or the effect of those words took place?

Sidney Powell: I cannot reveal the source right now. But I do have a very good source for that information.

Jason Chaffetz: And you believe the Department of Justice is withholding that information from you?

Sidney Powell: I believe the Department of Justice is withholding a lot of information as is Mr. Clapper, Mr. Brennan and all the people who participated in the complete set up of General Michael Flynn.

Powell then describes some of the details of the case.

We have found additional text messages that the government suppressed, including one where agent Peter Strzok indicates he knows it’s a pretext to go interview General Flynn. They knew there was no Logan Act violation. They exonerated him completely of being an agent of Russia by the end of January and yet Mr. Comey still runs to the White House on February 14th and conjures up the entire obstruction of justice narrative against the President when Flynn had been cleared of everything long before that.

We also have information that the agents did manipulate the 302, you know it was long in a deliberative state which was highly unusual in and of itself, We attached as Exhibit 11 to our document a comparison of the February 10th and February 11th 302s that show the addition of substantial additional claims that were not in there before and are not supported by the notes which we also attach as exhibits to the document. So people can go to the actual document and read it and see a lot for themselves. It’s extremely concerning. It’s outrageous government misconduct. The agents deliberately calculated and met to plan and to strategize how to ambush General Flynn without letting him know he was officially under any kind of criminal investigation to keep him relaxed. And they wanted to be seen as allies when in fact they knew exactly what he had said in his conversations and they intended to create a situation in which anything he said could be used against him later as a false statement without any warnings to that effect whatsoever.

Finally, I want to mention that, following a Flynn hearing in September, it was said that Powell and Judge Emmet Sullivan, who is presiding over the case, seemed to have had a strong rapport, that the judge treated her with a great deal of respect. I believe the statement was made by Techno Fog who attended the hearing although I’m unable to locate a direct quote. For whatever it’s worth, I thought I’d pass that along.

Powell’s legal team took over Flynn’s defense in late 2018. It’s unfortunate he didn’t work with her from the start. Anyway, he’s got her now and she’s a smart lady. If anyone can get this sham of a case dismissed, it’s Powell.

The post Balls to the Wall! Has the Intrepid Sidney Powell Tapped into a Deep State Source? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-26-at-7.18.23-AM-300x174 Balls to the Wall! Has the Intrepid Sidney Powell Tapped into a Deep State Source? sidney powell Russia Peter Strzok Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Lisa Page james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump doj democrats Campaigns Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble

Westlake Legal Group comey-620x413 Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble william barr Ukraine Steele dossier spying Russia Rachel Maddow President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn Mainstream Media john durham John Brennan James Clapper Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton george papadopoulos Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats corruption cia Campaigns bill barr Allow Media Exception alexander downer Abuse of Power 2020

Former FBI director James Comey testifies before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 8, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

 

On Thursday evening, the New York Times reported that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s administrative review of the origins of the Trump/Russia investigation has shifted into a criminal inquiry. This major development grants Durham the power to subpoena witnesses and documents and to impanel a grand jury. Speculation has increased in the wake of reports that Attorney General William Barr and Durham had twice traveled to Rome and London to meet with intelligence officials recently and the news that Durham was interested in questioning both former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan.

My colleague, Bonchie, posted on this story last night (here), writing that the mainstream media is portraying this as a political move. The following excerpt from the Times will give you an idea of how they plan to spin it. (Emphasis mine.)

The opening of a criminal investigation is likely to raise alarms that Mr. Trump is using the Justice Department to go after his perceived enemies.

…] The move also creates an unusual situation in which the Justice Department is conducting a criminal investigation into itself.

Mr. Barr’s reliance on Mr. Durham, a widely respected and veteran prosecutor who has investigated C.I.A. torture and broken up Mafia rings, could help insulate the attorney general from accusations that he is doing the president’s bidding and putting politics above justice.

[…] Federal investigators need only a “reasonable indication” that a crime has been committed to open an investigation, a much lower standard than the probable cause required to obtain search warrants. However, “there must be an objective, factual basis for initiating the investigation; a mere hunch is insufficient,” according to Justice Department guidelines.

Rather than acknowledging that Durham is zeroing in on the truth about the plot to destroy Donald Trump’s candidacy and following his unexpected victory, his presidency, they are characterizing it as Trump’s revenge. Still, there’s no doubt the major players involved in this travesty are starting to feel the squeeze.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who has been peddling lies to her viewers for three years, characterized this latest move as a “frame job” and a “false flag operation” of the Trump campaign. She said, “This is the news that honestly, we’ve been sort of expecting for some time or thinking that if things got really bad, it might come to this…That is the conspiracy theory that the attorney general of the United States appears to have been going around the world trying to prove.”

It’s just crazy, isn’t it Rachel? Yes, now that Trump is on the verge of being impeached, his good buddy, Bill Barr, is going to bat for him. She will continue spewing this nonsense until Durham presents solid evidence of misconduct. At that point, her ratings, which fell by 25% following the release of the Mueller report, will crater.

Also last night, DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz announced that his long-anticipated report on alleged FISA abuse will be released in the next week to ten days with limited redactions. In a letter to lawmakers yesterday, which can be viewed here, he wrote that the classification process is “nearing an end” and explained that there will be one version of the final document. “Given the constructive progress that has been made during the classification review process, I do not anticipate a need to prepare and issue separate classified and public versions of the report.”

We know that Durham has questioned a number of CIA officials recently leading to speculation that the CIA outsourced some of their operations to their foreign counterparts to circumvent U.S. laws governing spying on U.S. citizens. Central to their investigation is the Maltese professor Joseph Mifsud. It was said that, on their most recent trip to Rome (at the end of September), Barr and Durham listened to a recording of a deposition provided by Mifsud in the summer of 2018 in which he explained his role in the saga. Additionally, Durham obtained two cell phones which Mifsud had used in 2016. Mifsud’s Swiss attorney, Stephan Roh, has been cooperating with Durham’s team for several months now.

In fact, the legal team of Trump’s former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn, believes there may be exculpatory evidence on those phones and they’re working to obtain them from Durham.

Former junior advisor for the Trump campaign George Papadopoulos, who was targeted by several “informants” in 2016, appeared on Fox News’ Martha MacCallum’s show recently and said:

Basically how I would summarize this, the grand statesman under Rome, Cicero, you know what he said?  What I think happened in 2016 and all of the events surrounding the 2016 campaign and the spying that took place on me and Michael Flynn and others was tantamount to treason. What happened was there was an intelligence agency with an ax to grind with candidate Trump and obviously President Trump, where we see the Russia hoax now evolving into Ukraine-gate. This is not going to stop. I predicted that Joseph Mifsud, that individual who now both of his Blackberries are now in the hands of the DOJ was a Western Intelligence agent. I wrote about it in my book exactly how I came in contact with this person who introduced me to him and what he wanted. Something I did not know and actually something that surprised me very much is that Joseph Mifsud was also spying on Michael Flynn just two months before he started his encounters with me… I joined the Donald Trump campaign in March of 2016. Before even the Washington Post or the American media knew that I was joining this campaign I had Joseph Mifsud and other intelligence agencies knowing all about me, what I was doing and what Donald Trump’s campaign was all about. So the notion that this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, started spontaneously on July 31st 2016 is absurd. It’s completely absurd.

This is an extremely complex story which involves an enormous number of people. Durham’s team has been working on it formally since May. However, there were indications that he was actually on it several weeks or even months prior. If I recall correctly, Durham appeared at one or two Congressional hearings to listen to the testimony of former FBI officials.

In addition to the involvement of the British and Italian intelligence communities, there is reason to believe that Australian intelligence officials participated in the conspiracy. We need only look to Australian diplomat Alexander Downer’s May 2016 meeting with George Papadopoulos at a London bar where the Trump campaign’s newest advisor told him the Russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton. The FBI claims it was this event which triggered their counterintelligence investigation of Donald Trump.

Following Clapper’s lengthy trip to New Zealand and Australia in the late spring, Papadopoulos hinted he may have traveled there to cover his tracks. He posted the following tweet.

It looks like Trump is about to fight back. Fasten your seatbelts everybody!

The post Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group comey-300x200 Major Development: The Deep State is in Deep Trouble william barr Ukraine Steele dossier spying Russia Rachel Maddow President Trump Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn Mainstream Media john durham John Brennan James Clapper Impeachment of President Trump Hillary Clinton george papadopoulos Front Page Stories FISA Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption elections donald trump democrats corruption cia Campaigns bill barr Allow Media Exception alexander downer Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Andrew McCabe Does an Interview and Makes a Stunning Admission

Westlake Legal Group comey-mccabe-620x348 Andrew McCabe Does an Interview and Makes a Stunning Admission Steele dossier Russia Politics Michael Flynn investigation george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Front Page Fraud Fishing Expedition FISA Featured Story donald trump democrats corrupt Carter Page Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

I’m not sure if he meant to admit this or if he’s just so brazen that he doesn’t care. Probably the latter.

Andrew McCabe, who’s currently facing a coming indictment for lying to the FBI (while also moonlighting as a CNN analyst of course), did an interview on his time at the FBI during the Trump-Russia investigation. Along the way, he made a pretty important admission regarding the origins of the probe.

McCabe said the FBI opened its case in late July 2016 based on information about Trump adviser George Papadopoulos.

“We open the case, and then we think, ‘OK, now who are we actually going to investigate?’” McCabe said at the event, which aired Tuesday on C-SPAN.

“Who do we know who is associated with the campaign who has known, significant ties to Russian intelligence?” he asked rhetorically. “We quickly come up with four names that will not surprise you.”

Wait, so they started the investigation without even knowing who they were going to investigate? Why, it’s almost as if they were simply fishing around Trump’s campaign for political reasons.

Seriously though, that’s probably something he shouldn’t be saying out loud, as it confirms what most of us have been saying for years. This entire fiasco started without probable cause under the false pretenses of a counter intelligence investigation, which effectively removed all guardrails on Comey and McCabe. Instead of having a crime or action to go on, they simply started chumming the waters and filling in the blanks as they went.

It’s also no coincidence that three of their first four targets came from the Steele dossier. In this same interview, McCabe sought to defend the document even as it’s been exposed as the dumpster fire that it is.

He also sought to defend Steele and his salacious dossier, which the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants on Page.

“It is raw source reporting,” McCabe said, “and Steele presented it as such.”

“We knew that Steele was working a number of different sources, some of which has sub-sources, and sub-sub-sources, and he would represent that in the reporting, as any good source should. It didn’t come with his imprimatur of, ‘this is all gospel.’ It was like, ‘this is what I’m hearing,’” said McCabe, who is under Justice Department investigation.

“That’s how good sources report.”

It should scare everyone that this guy was at the highest levels of ensuring national security. “That’s how good sources report?” By funneling abject garbage sourced from Russians that was so ridiculous that it was nearly all debunked the moment it went public? If that’s true then we should just disband the FBI because they suck at their jobs. They treated the Steele dossier as legitimate for months while it took news outlets a few days to tear most of it apart. That’s America’s best and brightest? Or perhaps just most partisan.

This guy needs to be brought down hard. If he walks after all this, justice is truly not blind in this country.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Andrew McCabe Does an Interview and Makes a Stunning Admission appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SAD-mccabe-300x157 Andrew McCabe Does an Interview and Makes a Stunning Admission Steele dossier Russia Politics Michael Flynn investigation george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Front Page Fraud Fishing Expedition FISA Featured Story donald trump democrats corrupt Carter Page Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Michael Flynn’s Legal Team Throws Down the Gauntlet

Westlake Legal Group mueller-hearing-3-j-620x317 Michael Flynn’s Legal Team Throws Down the Gauntlet strzok Robert Mueller Politics plea deal Michael Flynn mccabe lying Judge Sullivan Hiding Evidence Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story FBI doj corruption comey

Former special counsel Robert Mueller listens to committee members give their opening remarks before he testifies before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on his report on Russian election interference, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Wednesday, July 24, 2019. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The case of Michael Flynn’s plea deal, which he made after being strong armed by Robert Mueller’s virtuous troop, continues to drag out. This time, Flynn’s lawyers are back in court and they are going hard at the DOJ’s conduct.

As the Washington Examiner Reports, Flynn’s legal team is presenting their case to the presiding judge that the DOJ continues to hide evidence that could exonerate Flynn.

Mike Flynn’s attorneys said the government is hiding evidence that could help President Trump’s former national security adviser.

Sidney Powell, the head of Flynn’s new legal team, claimed in court Tuesday the Justice Department withheld evidence related to Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, James Comey, Flynn’s FBI interview notes, and more.

“There never would’ve been a plea to begin with” if Flynn knew how much information DOJ was hiding, Powell said. Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 for lying to investigators about conversations with the Russian ambassador.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is presiding over the case, gave Powell an unusual amount of leeway as she argued the government withheld information from her client to pressure him into accepting a guilty plea, which he never would’ve done had he been aware of all the facts. Flynn’s sentencing has been delayed for a year as he cooperated with the government.

When you look at how Flynn was entrapped, it’s obvious the FBI/DOJ are hiding something here and want to save face. We know Flynn did nothing illegal by participating in the phone call with the Russian Ambassador during the 2016 transition period. We know the agents who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying. We also know Flynn was strung along by Andrew McCabe and James Comey, who presented the interview as just a friendly chat, without revealing he was under any kind of investigation.

But more things are being exposed now. Namely, that the DOJ knew Flynn had not violated the Logan Act, but still used it to threaten and force him into a plea deal.

She claimed documentation exists that shows then-FBI deputy director McCabe ruled out Logan Act charges against Flynn in January or February of 2017, yet DOJ “egregiously” held the possibility of being charged under the 18th-century statute over his head during plea negotiations anyway.

Powell said the defense still hadn’t been given access to all the interview notes from Flynn’s discussions with FBI agents, including one written by agent Joe Pientka that the government claims it no longer has.

I can hear the rebuttals now. “Well, it’s his fault for taking the plea.” Nonsense. When you have Robert Mueller, with unlimited resources, bringing the entire weight of the federal government down on your head and financially destroying you, you take the plea to the lesser charge. There’s also been much talk that Mueller threatned to go after Flynn’s son as well.

None of this happened on the up and up. Mueller wanted a scalp and Flynn was one of the few he could take while still bandying a “Russian collusion” story line, even though the phone call itself turned out to be nothing.

For the DOJ’s part, they argue they did give Flynn the text messages in question.

Brandon Van Grack, formerly of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team who now heads up DOJ’s FARA unit, told the judge that “following the court’s standing Brady order has always been the guideline the government has pursued.” The prosecutor said that, before Flynn’s plea deal, Flynn had been made aware of the Strzok-Page texts “before the public knew they existed.”

“The government has never alleged that Mr. Flynn was an agent of Russia,” Van Grack said. “He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about particular issues related to Russia, not about being an agent of Russia.”

Again, this is nonsense. Flynn only pleaded out because the government were threatening him (and his son) with FARA and Logan Act violations. Now the DOJ wants to claim they were never worried about Flynn being a Russian agent. That’s some serious spin by the government. You can’t use something to beat someone into a decision and then claim that something was never relevant to the decision being made. Of course it’s relevant, going all the way back to whether Flynn had all the information necessary to make the right choice on taking the plea deal.

This kind of game playing by the DOJ and Mueller is exactly why no one trusts these agencies anymore. If Flynn had evidence hidden from him, the plea should be vacated. As it stands though, it doesn’t appear Judge Sullivan, who’s more than shown his bias in this case, wants to do that. Instead, the more likely scenario here is that Flynn isn’t sentenced to any jail time.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Michael Flynn’s Legal Team Throws Down the Gauntlet appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-mike-flynn2-300x264 Michael Flynn’s Legal Team Throws Down the Gauntlet strzok Robert Mueller Politics plea deal Michael Flynn mccabe lying Judge Sullivan Hiding Evidence Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story FBI doj corruption comey   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe

Westlake Legal Group andrew-mccabe-300x182 John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe Special Counsel Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn John Ratcliffe Jeff Sessions george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats crime Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

 

In an appearance on Fox News‘ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) told host Maria Bartiromo he sees an indictment for fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe on charges of lying to the government.

McCabe was fired on March 16, 2018, hours before his retirement was scheduled to take effect. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions made his decision based on recommendations from both the DOJ’s Inspector General and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility. The IG report indicated that McCabe “had made unauthorized releases of information to the media and had misled agents who questioned him about it” and had “displayed a lack of candor.” Simply put, he lied to investigators.

The IG report stated:

We found that, in a conversation with then-Director Comey shortly after the WSJ article was published, McCabe lacked candor when he told Comey, or made statements that led Comey to believe, that McCabe had not authorized the disclosure and did not know who did.  This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.5 (Lack of Candor – No Oath).

We also found that on May 9, 2017, when questioned under oath by FBI agents from INSD, McCabe lacked candor when he told the agents that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ and did not know who did.  This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor –  Under Oath).

We further found that on July 28, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview, McCabe lacked candor when he stated: (a) that he was not aware of Special Counsel having been authorized to speak to reporters around October 30 and (b) that,  because he was not in Washington, D.C., on October 27 and 28, 2016, he was unable to say where Special Counsel was or what she was doing at that time.  This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor – Under Oath).

We additionally found that on November 29, 2017, when questioned under oath by the OIG in a recorded interview during which he contradicted his prior statements by acknowledging that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ, McCabe lacked candor when he: (a) stated that he told Comey on October 31, 2016, that he had authorized the disclosure to the WSJ; (b) denied telling INSD agents on May 9 that he had not authorized the disclosure to the WSJ about the PADAG call; and (c) asserted that INSD’s questioning of him on May 9 about the October 30 WSJ article occurred at the end of an unrelated meeting when one of the INSD agents pulled him aside and asked him one or two questions about the article. This conduct violated FBI Offense Code 2.6 (Lack of Candor –   Under Oath).

McCabe denied any wrongdoing, claiming the charges were politically motivated.

Actually, although IANAL, it looks like perjury to me.

Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, said, “Here, you have the inspector general stating that Andrew McCabe did that multiple times, and the magic words, did so intentionally and knowingly. I think the Department of Justice is going to have to indict Andy McCabe, simply because to do otherwise would be to admit that there are separate standards for people doing the same thing for the same conduct. You can’t really tell the public we’re going to treat people differently for the same conduct.”

He added that the Mueller team “made a cottage industry out of charging people like General Flynn and George Papadopoulos for lying to investigators.”

The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross notes that, given McCabe’s rank at the FBI, he was “authorized to release information about ongoing investigations to the media as long as it was done in the public interest.” But, in his report, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz writes that “McCabe authorized the leak in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of Department leadership.”

An August 26th report from the New York Times said that McCabe’s attorneys had met with Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen. When a suspect’s attorneys meet with the Deputy AG, it is often a clue that an indictment is on the way. It can be construed as a last ditch effort for the attorneys to make the case that their client is innocent.

The New York Times report said:

Federal prosecutors in Washington appear to be in the final stages of deciding whether to seek an indictment of Andrew G. McCabe, the former deputy F.B.I. director and a frequent target of President Trump, on charges of lying to federal agents, according to interviews with people familiar with recent developments in the investigation.

In two meetings last week, Mr. McCabe’s lawyers met with the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who is expected to be involved in the decision about whether to prosecute, and for more than an hour with the United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie K. Liu, according to a person familiar with the meetings. The person would not detail the discussions, but defense lawyers typically meet with top law enforcement officials to try to persuade them not to indict their client if they failed to get line prosecutors to drop the case.

Ratcliffe told Bartiromo that “there is a difference of opinion” over whether or not McCabe will be indicted. He said, “I don’t know how you can’t indict him when he is engaged in the same conduct that other people have recently been charged for at the Department of Justice, particularly when your own watchdog says that those lies were done intentionally and knowingly and done repeatedly.”

In an incredibly audacious move, McCabe sued the DOJ and the FBI last month. He blames Trump for his firing. His lawsuit (which can be viewed here) states that Trump had “constitutionally improper motives for removing him.”

Watch the video.

The post John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group andrew-mccabe-300x182 John Ratcliffe Predicts An Indictment For CNN’s Newest Contributor, Andrew McCabe Special Counsel Mueller Investigation Michael Horowitz Michael Flynn John Ratcliffe Jeff Sessions george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption donald trump democrats crime Andrew McCabe Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Comey IG Report Takes Down Another Collusion Myth

Westlake Legal Group ap-mike-flynn2-620x545 The Comey IG Report Takes Down Another Collusion Myth Russia Politics Michael Flynn media bias james comey IG Report horowitz Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats conspiracy theory collusion

National Security Adviser Michael Flynn arrives in the east Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Feb. 13, 2017, for a news conference with President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. . (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

As we found out last week, the DOJ Inspector General released a stand alone report on the actions of disgraced FBI Director James Comey. This dealt with his mishandling of classified information and involved a criminal referral, which the DOJ decided not to pursue because that’s Washington D.C. for you.

Regardless, what the report did was paint a damning picture of Comey’s behavior, from illegal possession of classified material, to how he was using the bureau to chase after his own, mindless conspiracy theories. Through the report, we learned that the now infamous briefing with Trump about the Steele Dossier was actually a setup in hopes the President would incriminate himself.

Perhaps Trump would say something incriminating. The FBI officials made plans for Comey, immediately after leaving the meeting, to write down everything he could remember about whatever Trump said. Comey also wanted to discuss Trump’s reactions with top aides immediately. Comey told the inspector general it was “important for FBI executive managers to be ‘able to share in [Comey’s] recall of the salient details of those conversations.’” Bureau officials also wanted to be able to respond if Trump publicly “misrepresent[ed] what happened in the encounter.”

So, preparations were made. “Comey said he had a secure FBI laptop waiting for him in his FBI vehicle and that when he got into the vehicle, he was handed the laptop and ‘began typing as the vehicle moved,’” the report says. He worked on his account as the FBI car took him to the New York field office, where aides had set up a secure video teleconference with Rybicki, McCabe, Baker, and the “Crossfire Hurricane” supervisors. Comey continued to work on his memo after that and sent the group a final version the next day, Saturday, Jan. 7.

While the IG report exposed ridiculous, partisan behavior like the above, it also killed yet another collusion myth. Recall one of the most talked about pieces of evidence against Trump, supposedly showing he wanted to squash the Russia investigation and was willing to obstruct justice to do so.

I’m talking about the now infamous conversation between Trump and James Comey over Michael Flynn’s phone call with the Russian ambassador.

This via Julie Kelly at American Greatness.

“He misled the Vice President but he didn’t do anything wrong in the call,” Comey claimed Trump said to him. “[Trump] said, ‘I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.”

According to Russian collusion truthers, those alleged comments form the most convincing evidence that Team Trump not only conspired with the Russians and tried to cover it up, but that the president broke the law by asking his FBI director to halt an investigation into one of his top advisors.

If you’ve never seen that first line reported, you aren’t alone. It’s been omitted in nearly every mainstream media screed on this incident. What it shows is that Trump had absolutely no intent to hamper a real criminal investigation. In fact, he rightly pointed out that Flynn had done nothing wrong, something the FBI themselves would conclude in short order. There was nothing illegal about Flynn talking to the Russian ambassador about sanctions during the transition. It’s exactly the kind of conversation you’d expect an incoming administration to have.

But the media went wild. Trump had obstructed justice and Flynn had violated the Logan Act (which the media would eventually decide doesn’t matter the moment John Kerry blatantly violated it). Further, Trump’s actions showed that he was colluding with the Russians because he didn’t want his campaign investigated.

But if the generally accepted interpretation of the Flynn memo—that Trump asked Comey to drop the FBI’s investigation into Flynn for being in cahoots with the Russians—is true, it indeed contained what undoubtedly is classified information. According to federal guidelines, government material meets the classification threshold if it pertains to “foreign government information” and/or “intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods.”

Comey and the president would have been discussing a counterintelligence probe which by its very definition deals with threats from foreign governments. It would have pertained to information derived from an intercepted phone call with an agent of a foreign power. It would have disclosed law enforcement activity to uncover how a global foe disrupted a U.S. presidential election with the aid of traitorous American citizens.

But here is why the FBI didn’t mark the Flynn memo as classified: Trump wasn’t talking about the Russia investigation—and the corrupt chiefs at the FBI who analyzed the Flynn memo knew it.

I’ll take it a step further. Comey purposely didn’t mark it as classified because 1) he knew Trump wasn’t talking about the Russia investigation but also 2) he wanted to be able to leak it without legal repercussions. Both are corrupt.

In fact, in Comey’s memo, he admits Trump was talking specifically about Flynn and not a broader investigation into his associates.

Still, the media ran with the untrue assertion that Trump was wanting to shut everything down.

The resulting article, however, did not report that Trump asked Comey to drop an FBI inquiry into Flynn’s false statements. The Timesstory published May 16, “Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End the Flynn Investigation,” rocked the political world. Reporter Michael Schmidt wrote that “the documentation of Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Trump’s associates and Russia.”

News outlets piled on the bogus storyline: “[Comey] should come back to the Congress and share with us what he knows in terms of the president’s conversations with him on any of the Russian investigations,” Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told the Washington Post.

The next day, Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate so-called collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians to influence the 2016 election.

In other words, the special counsel was appointed on the false premise that Trump was attempting to obstruct the Russia investigation. In reality he didn’t even know it existed because the FBI were inconceivably hiding it from him. They wouldn’t admit to him that his campaign was under investigation until March of 2017, a month later.

We would spend the next 2 years arguing about something that didn’t even happen but would reach mythical proportions on the left and within mainstream media circles. Outlets like The New York Times would structure their entire newsrooms just to print negative story after negative story, almost always based on anonymous sources that would turn out to be wrong.

None of this had to happen. But it did because of corrupt officials in our government and a more than eager media ready to do their bidding. Now that things have cooled off, it’s easy to forget just how insane things got before Mueller’s public testimony poured cold water on everything. The fever pitch, the slander, the destroyed lives. All of it still matters and it’s about time the DOJ takes action to secure justice.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post The Comey IG Report Takes Down Another Collusion Myth appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group comey-300x200 The Comey IG Report Takes Down Another Collusion Myth Russia Politics Michael Flynn media bias james comey IG Report horowitz Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story FBI donald trump doj democrats conspiracy theory collusion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Andrew McCabe and the DOJ’s Clinton-Trump dichotomy

Westlake Legal Group McCabe-3 Andrew McCabe and the DOJ’s Clinton-Trump dichotomy The Blog Michael Flynn george papadopoulos Andrew McCarthy Andrew McCabe

With the Mueller report behind us and the possibility that Andrew McCabe will be prosecuted still lingering, Andrew McCarthy offers an overview of what justice looks like these days. In the piece published today at NRO, McCarthy makes the best case I’ve seen that the divergent treatment of Hillary and her associates versus Trump and his associates by the DOJ. Case in point, the treatment of Andrew McCabe now compared to the treatment of Gen. Michael Flynn and others connected to Trump not long ago:

McCabe is feeling the heat because the evidence that he made false statements is daunting. So daunting, in fact, that even he concedes he did not tell the truth to investigators. Listen carefully to what he says about the case — there being no shortage of public commentary on it from the newly minted CNN analyst. He never “deliberately misled anyone,” he insists. Sure, he grudgingly admits, some of his statements “were not fully accurate,” or perhaps were “misunderstood” by his interrogators. But “at worst,” you see, “I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted.”

Uh-huh.

Seems to me that General Michael Flynn “may well have been confused and distracted,” too. After all, it was on Flynn’s insanely busy first full day on the job as the new president’s national-security adviser that McCabe and Comey dispatched two agents — Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka — to brace him for an interview.

As our Rich Lowry recounts, Comey later bragged to an audience of like-minded anti-Trumpers at the 92nd Street Y that he knew this was a breach of protocol. Because seeking to interview a member of the president’s staff in a criminal investigation is a big deal, the Bureau is supposed to go through the attorney general, who alerts the White House counsel. That ensures that the administration is aware of the situation, and that the suspected staffer is advised of the reason for the interview and given an opportunity to consult with a lawyer.

But Comey and McCabe bypassed all of that on the grounds that Flynn may have violated the Logan Act, a law that might as well not exist since it has never been used to successfully prosecute anyone. And it wasn’t just Flynn who got this treatment. Mueller prosecuted George Papadopoulos for lying while the DOJ gave Paul Combetta a pass:

Combetta was not prosecuted even though he brazenly lied to the FBI about the circumstances of his destruction of Clinton’s private emails. He was the key witness who had been in communication with Clinton confederates before and after his bleach-bit blitz through Clinton’s emails. In a normal case, prosecutors would charge him with obstruction and false statements to pressure him into cooperating. In the Clinton caper, though, he was given immunity . . . and duly clammed up.

And of course, Cheryl Mills told Peter Strzok during her FBI interview that she didn’t know Hillary had a private server until after Clinton left office. That conveniently coincided with when Mills became Clinton’s lawyer again. So she didn’t know anything while Clinton was in office and anything she knew thereafter was privileged. In fact, during her FBI interview Mills claimed she wasn’t sure she knew what a server was (shades of Hillary saying “Wipe it with a cloth?”) But an email Mills wrote in 2010 said, “FYI – hrc email coming back – is server okay?”

In short, there was plenty of evidence Mills lied and that Combetta lied, but the DOJ didn’t seem hot to charge them and see what they might offer prosecutors as happened with Flynn and Papadopoulos. McCarthy concludes: “In a better world, I’d prefer to take account of the considerable positive side of McCabe’s ledger and what he’s already suffered, especially if he exhibited some contrition. That is, I’d ordinarily be open to declining prosecution. But then, how about the positive side of General Flynn’s ledger?”

Put another way, why does McCabe deserve the Hillary treatment when others with equally long records of public service received the Trump treatment for their mistakes?

The post Andrew McCabe and the DOJ’s Clinton-Trump dichotomy appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group McCabe-3-300x153 Andrew McCabe and the DOJ’s Clinton-Trump dichotomy The Blog Michael Flynn george papadopoulos Andrew McCarthy Andrew McCabe   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mueller Report Footnotes Reveal A Story Of Their Own

Westlake Legal Group comey-mueller-620x433 Mueller Report Footnotes Reveal A Story Of Their Own The Mueller Report Special Counsel Robert Mueller Paul Sperry Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption Eric Felten Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020

FILE – In this Sept. 4, 2013, file photo, then-incoming FBI Director James Comey talks with outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller before Comey was officially sworn in at the Justice Department in Washington. On May 17, 2017, the Justice Department said it is appointing Mueller as special counsel to oversee investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

 

It’s safe to say that most Americans didn’t read the Mueller Report, let alone the footnotes.

Real Clear Investigation’s Eric Felten actually did read the footnotes, all 2,000 of them, and they tell an interesting story indeed. In fact, Felten writes that it is in the footnotes “where the strengths and weaknesses of the Mueller report are most clearly on display.” After reading his report, I believe him.

The Mueller team had no time restraints, unlimited financial resources, nearly unfettered access to documents and interviews and all those high-powered Democrats, close scrutiny reveals that it’s end product, the Mueller report, is a unsubstantive, highly partisan document.

The first major observation is how heavily Mueller and his team relied on former FBI Director James Comey’s “memos.” You recall, Comey had been in the habit of writing down notes of what had been discussed during his meetings and phone calls with President Trump because he didn’t trust him. Felten found that dozens of footnotes were based upon these one-sided accounts. He writes:

These include memos dated Jan. 7 and Jan. 28, 2017, as well as notes from Feb. 14, March 30 and April 11. Those memoranda were treated as the evidentiary gold standard by Mueller. Long stretches of the special counsel’s report hang almost exclusively on Comey’s say-so. One or another of Comey’s memos are cited some three dozen times in Volume II alone, which addresses possible obstruction by Trump.

There are many citations from an FBI interview of Comey as well as from Comey’s testimony before Congress in June 2017, after he had been fired.

As it turns out, Comey was far from an objective party throughout this political Peyton Place. In fact, if Real Clear Investigation’s Paul Sperry’s report is accurate, Comey was conducting a probe of President Trump while he assured him in person that he was not the subject of an investigation. This report, published on Monday, cited sources familiar with the DOJ IG investigation. It can be viewed here.

Regarding Comey’s bias, Felten writes:

Which means that Comey was writing his memos with an eye to swaying future legal and public opinion. Upon finishing a memo, he would run it by his top deputies (see footnotes 187 and 188 in Volume II) to make sure it served its purpose. Comey’s memos may or may not be the “strong corroborating evidence” Mueller claims, but Comey surely intended for those memoranda to establish his version of events.

This lack of skepticism about Comey’s motivation is especially jarring given footnote 544 in Volume II, which suggests a political motive and, perhaps, some lawbreaking. That’s where Mueller acknowledges that Comey arranged to have several of the aforementioned memos leaked: “Comey testified that he deliberately caused his memorandum documenting the February 14, 2017 meeting [with the president] to be leaked to the New York Times,” the footnote reads, “because he thought sharing the memorandum with a reporter ‘might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.’”

Equally disturbing were the numerous citations from media accounts of events. Mueller and his team were particularly fond of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

For example, the report states, “On July 22, 2016, the day before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks posted thousands of hacked DNC documents revealing sensitive internal deliberations.” According to the footnote, this information comes from a Washington Post article written by Tom Hamburger and Karen Tumulty. It was entitled “WikiLeaks releases thousands of documents about Clinton and internal deliberations.”

In another example, the report states, “On December 10, 2016, the press reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had ‘concluded that Russia interfered in last month’s presidential election to boost Donald Trump’s bid for the White House.’” The footnote cites an article in The Guardian, which cites articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post. The newspapers each cite “anonymous sources.”

So, the source of this “factual” material in the Mueller report was anonymous and thrice removed.

Felten found that the report referenced many primary sources, such as FBI interviews, however, much of this material was opinion rather than evidence. For example, a footnote indicates that former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn

“told White House officials that the FBI had told him that the FBI was closing out its investigation of him,” but that John Eisenberg, a deputy White counsel, “did not believe him.”

Let’s pause for a second and consider what the footnote appears to tell us, but doesn’t: Eisenberg’s incredulity aside, did the FBI tell Flynn it was closing out its investigation of him or didn’t it? By citing Eisenberg’s disbelief, the special counsel suggests that Flynn was lying to his fellow White House officials. But what Eisenberg believed settles nothing – he was in no position to know what the FBI had or had not told Flynn.

What about the two FBI agents (one of them the ubiquitous Peter Strzok) who interviewed Flynn? The special counsel could have questioned them separately, asking each under oath whether they had told, suggested, hinted, or in any other way made Flynn to believe he was off the hook. In this case, the sources Mueller chooses not to question are more telling than the ones he does cite.

Although the Mueller report is one of the most important political documents in recent memory, it was written by a team of Democrats, many of whom were large donors, and it relied upon the most biased sources such as Comey, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian.

And still, they found no evidence of a crime.

When the report is carefully scrutinized, we wonder why we ever gave it so much attention.

We also have to question why this investigation, if one can even call it that, took 22 months.

After all, what did they have to investigate?

The post Mueller Report Footnotes Reveal A Story Of Their Own appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group comey-mueller-300x210 Mueller Report Footnotes Reveal A Story Of Their Own The Mueller Report Special Counsel Robert Mueller Paul Sperry Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn james comey Front Page Stories Featured Story FBI and DOJ Corruption Eric Felten Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dems’ new strategy to defeat executive privilege: Subpoena randos!

Westlake Legal Group nadler-hearing Dems’ new strategy to defeat executive privilege: Subpoena randos! The Blog rick gates Paul Manafort Michael Flynn Jerrold Nadler impeachment House Judiciary Committee House Democrats donald trump Corey Lewandowski Chris Christie

Question: What can Congress do to get around claims of executive privilege while pursuing dreams of impeachment? Answer, via Politico — subpoena randos. Oh sure, they’re famous randos, of course, necessary for garnering the headlines that the House Judiciary Committee craves, but legally speaking about as relevant as calling John Dean to talk about Watergate.

Which, of course, they’ve already done:

Democrats investigating Donald Trump for obstruction of justice are eyeing a new strategy to break the president’s all-out oversight blockade: calling witnesses who never worked in the White House.

Key lawmakers tell POLITICO they hope to make an end run around Trump’s executive privilege assertions by expanding their circle of testimony targets to people outside government who nonetheless had starring roles in Robert Mueller’s final report. That includes presidential confidants like former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Other Russia-related figures who never served in Trump’s administration and would make for prime congressional witnesses include Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, the former top campaign officials who both pleaded guilty and faced extensive questioning by federal prosecutors working on the Mueller probe, as well as a former attorney for Michael Flynn who is cited in the special counsel’s report in an episode involving a dangled presidential pardon.

The subpoenas for Paul Manafort and Rick Gates might have some theoretical connection to an impeachment case against Donald Trump. They worked on his campaign and are facing long years in prison for their earlier corrupt acts in dealing with Ukraine and Russia. Similarly, Michael Flynn worked in the White House — briefly, anyway, after working on the campaign and transition team. It’s theoretically possible that they could produce some sort of smoking gun against Trump.

However, that’s only a theoretical possibility. All three men faced prosecution by Robert Mueller, and none of them produced any smoking guns in exchange for leniency. Flynn, in fact, has been so cooperative that Mueller’s team has had to go to bat for him a couple of times with a federal judge to get a lenient sentence — and yet never gave Mueller anything on Trump. What exactly can the House Judiciary Committee give any of these men to unlock some supposed secret knowledge that they theoretically didn’t cough up to Mueller when it theoretically might have kept them out of prison? Immunity from future prosecutions? That’s a big help, and only in the theoretical sense.

At best, this is the House Judiciary Committee doing some belated due diligence in confirming Mueller’s work. At worst, it’s a publicity stunt by Jerrold Nadler.

As for subpoenaing Corey Lewandowski and Chris Christie, there is no “at best” scenario. It’s pure stuntwork and nothing more. Neither man worked in the White House, so they can’t speak to obstruction. No one has ever hypothesized that either man was in the Russia-collusion-hypothesis loop either. They literally have nothing to add to any impeachment case proposed by Democrats. Democrats will use them as props, targets for their soliloquies about Trump while producing nothing at all of substance.

After the John Dean debacle, Washington Post columnist Karen Tumulty lamented, “Is this the best Democrats can do?” Staging stunt hearings is apparently the only thing Democrats can do.

The post Dems’ new strategy to defeat executive privilege: Subpoena randos! appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group nadler-hearing-300x173 Dems’ new strategy to defeat executive privilege: Subpoena randos! The Blog rick gates Paul Manafort Michael Flynn Jerrold Nadler impeachment House Judiciary Committee House Democrats donald trump Corey Lewandowski Chris Christie   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Finally: Devin Nunes Sees The Special Counsel ‘Scope Memo’ And It Is Everything We Thought It Would Be

Westlake Legal Group Devin-Nunes-AP-620x349 Finally: Devin Nunes Sees The Special Counsel ‘Scope Memo’ And It Is Everything We Thought It Would Be Steele dossier Special Counsel Robert Mueller Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Impeachment of President Trump george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story Devin Nunes Christopher Steele Allow Media Exception 2020

File-This Oct. 24, 2017, file photo shows House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., speaking on Capitol Hill in Washington. Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence operations are pushing a conservative meme related to the investigation of Russian election interference, researchers say. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File) (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

 

Based upon previously released material such as the January 2018 Grassley-Graham criminal referral letter, the Nunes Memo which was released in February 2018, and the heavily redacted, but still useful, FISA documents, we had a pretty good idea that the Steele dossier was the central document upon which the Russian collusion case was based.

Last night, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) appeared on the Hannity show and following a discussion of the hearings initiated by House Democrats this week, he revealed that he had finally seen the August 2017 Special Counsel scope memo. This memo, written by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, outlined the parameters of Mueller’s mission. It also came three months after the investigation began.

Although Nunes couldn’t disclose any details contained in the scope memo, he said, “That dirty dossier permeated all the way through ultimately to the special counsel and I’ll close with this tonight. That is that I was finally able to see the scope memo and remember, I had these concerns that it was based upon the Steele dossier and look, I can’t talk about what’s in there, but we know from what Judge Sullivan put out. We know that it was probably largely based on the Steele dossier.” (Nunes’ remarks about the scope memo begin at 22:00 in the video below.)

I’m not sure what he meant by “probably.” I assume he isn’t at liberty to divulge specifics.

Nunes’ mention of “what Judge Sullivan put out” refers to the redacted copy of the scope memo which was released during the Paul Manafort trial. It can be viewed here.

The redacted version of the memo authorized Mueller “to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election and related matters.”

It addresses Paul Manafort:

Allegations that Paul Manafort:

Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law;

Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych.”

to investigate “four sets of allegations” regarding former national security adviser Michael Flynn. It also granted Mueller approval to investigate whether Papadopoulos, another Trump aide, was working as an agent for Israel.

The rest of the document is redacted. According to The Daily Caller’s Chuck Ross, the redacted portions address former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and former junior Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos.

Ross wrote: “The memo authorized Mueller to investigate “four sets of allegations” regarding Flynn. It also granted Mueller approval to investigate whether Papadopoulos was working as an agent for Israel.”

 

The post Finally: Devin Nunes Sees The Special Counsel ‘Scope Memo’ And It Is Everything We Thought It Would Be appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Devin-Nunes-AP-300x169 Finally: Devin Nunes Sees The Special Counsel ‘Scope Memo’ And It Is Everything We Thought It Would Be Steele dossier Special Counsel Robert Mueller Mueller Investigation Michael Flynn Impeachment of President Trump george papadopoulos Front Page Stories Featured Story Devin Nunes Christopher Steele Allow Media Exception 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com