Blah blah blah illegal authorizations blah blah blah, oh, and the name of our double agent in Russia is _______.

Oops, looks like because of this last bit of unnecessarily included super secret info that nobody can see this thing, and they'll have to trust us it exists and is legit,

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-justice-department-is-defiant-1525388245

Quote:

---

...Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump's tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.

The Justice Department rejected the latest subpoena request in a letter delivered to the Intelligence Committee after our Thursday deadline. The letter divulged that the committee had been asking for information about a "specific individual," and stated it would not be complying on grounds that to do so risked "potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities." The letter noted this decision had been made after consultation with the White House, though my reporting suggests the White House wants the Justice Department to find a way to comply....

---

"specific individual"??? potential loss of human lives"??? "compromise ongoing criminal investigations"??? "interfere with intelligence activities"???
Who can this important individual be since it's obviously not Trump??? HRC???? Comey???

---

DAMN! Is Valerie Plame active again? Or is it Carrie Mathison??

Lisa Page and James Baker no mas esta en la FBI.



NY Slimes

Quote:

---

Mr. Baker said in a telephone interview that he would be joining the Brookings Institution to write for Lawfare, its blog focused on national security law.

---

What a surprise. Joining another Comey bestie, Wittes.

Prosperdick said:

---

Please tell me that's because Horowitz has all he needs and is done with them and ready to release the OIG report.

---

Likely, yes. Toss the flotsam.

aggiehawg said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

My knees knock when Dixie breaks out the latin

---

LOL.

When I first started practicing law, we had dictabelts. Lawyers dictated everything into a microphone and a belt recorded it. Then our secretaries transcribed them for review and edits before the final draft.

I had a very young secretary, unfamiliar with the legal terms, but did the best she could make out. Examples not only included Latin phrases but English ones as well.

For instance, "the rule of comity" became "the rule of comedy"; "stare decisis" became "starry nights"; "scintilla of evidence" became "chinchilla of evidence"; and "prima facie" became "prime face"; "res ipsa loquitor" became "race is locator". I would save some to share for the nightly scotch hour with the partners. They had all trained new secretaries and knew what I was talking about. One even made it onto a plaque presented to us by a client after we won a big case for him. ("Chinchilla of evidence" in case you were wondering. I was drafting the jury instructions.)

I quickly learned to spell those terms as I was dictating my pleadings and briefs. (Oh God, don't get me started on the punctuation, capitalization, italicization instructions when citing cases.)

---

you're killing me with these old school stories, Hawg. I use a piece of software called Dragon these days. I pretty much just yack my briefing straight into word and then email to my secretary to make it look like a brief. My how times have changed.

Michael Caputo says "Howdy".

Welcome to the $700/hour club for attorneys.

fasthorses05 said:

---

Michael Caputo says "Howdy".

Welcome to the $700/hour club for attorneys.

---

so by the way, $700/hour is cheap these days.

I'm on a case right now where some Kirkland and Ellis partners are charging $1,795/hour. And these aren't old hands lending their names for credibility. These are the day to day guys running the case.

Quote:

---

you're killing me with these old school stories, Hawg. I use a piece of software called Dragon these days. I pretty much just yack my briefing straight into word and then email to my secretary to make it look like a brief. My how times have changed.

---

Yeah we actually needed to know how to write properly without spell-check and grammar apps. Proper citation form too. When one is writing state Supreme Courts briefs or for a circuit court of appeals, that crap matters.

Maybe technology has led to the abysmal state of competency in lawyering these days. (No offense to you, of course. You know your s***.)

Damn!

I saw in the WSJ last year that NY rates had gone to roughly $1,500.00/hour. I was trying to be conservative, and not hyperbolic, but ****----$1,795.00/hour is stunning!

Amazing how they got away with these redactions, not to hide national security but hide corruption

No offense taken and one of the items on my checklist is cite checking (both format and content). When i was a briefing clerk, you could separate the wheat from the chaff based on who was really getting their citation right. I assume the same holds true today so I make it a point to always be right (and to correct opposing counsel's citations when they have it wrong or forget something).

We have a lot of fancy tools to make it easier, but we still know how to get it right.

Quote:

---

FBI won't seek out messages from Peter Strzok, Lisa Page exchanged on personal devices

The FBI will not attempt to obtain messages exchanged on the personal devices of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI officials who came under fire after it was revealed they exchanged text messages critical of President Trump, despite requests to do so from a top Republican senator.

Charles Thorley, the acting assistant director of the FBI's office of congressional affairs, wrote in a letter this week to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, that FBI employees are "required to adhere to record keeping policies in place where communications constitute records under the Federal Records Act."

He added in the letter that "the FBI is not otherwise obligated to collect and/or retain all communications between its employees."

"Thus, the FBI has not requested from Ms. Page or Mr. Strzok any information from their personal email accounts, nor as the FBI conducted searches of non-FBI-issued communications devices or non-FBI email accounts associated with Mr. Strzok or Ms. Page," he said.

But Grassley argued that the FBI's letter did not address many of the questions he had asked in a January letter about communications between Strzok and Page.

---

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-wont-seek-out-messages-from-peter-strzok-lisa-page-exchanged-on-personal-devices

Yeah the rates going that high is basically my firm's play. We are all big law alums, all former federal clerks, but we don't hire younger than 3d year lawyers and our only real overhead is our lease, so we can get our rates 30-40% below what you'd be paying for the same (we are really much better) quality work. It's almost too easy.

Hiding from further IG inquiries?

more outrageous redactions uncovered

They chose to redact where is said Sally Yates gave conflicting stories not Flynn GEEZ

If criminal acts were conducted by Peter and Lisa, a criminal investigation could go after their relevant personal communications given how many times they refer to taking discussions of events offline or by other means.

BTW, I'm a little embarrased to ask this, but do any of y'all remember which thread page numbers we were discussing the FISA warrant levels, and the Judge levels.

We got off today on "Article III" judges, and I didn't get lost, but I just don't remember that being discussed, so I was hoping we have already educated the masses--like me, and I missed it. And then the only part of this thread where life got in the way of my daily edification of our government minutae, and I wasn't paying much attention, was the 8-10 pages of the FISA discussions---level i, ii, etc. It seems to me it was around page 170, or so.

If this is out of line, I'll survive, but I hope someone remembers.

Dermdoc must be doing a bad job at Blue Bell tonight. We're getting smoked by the #1 baseball team in the nation.

You're confusing Title 1, 3, 7, warrants/surveillance, and Article 1, 3, Judges. Article 3 federal judges are appointed for life by the POTUS. Appellate judges SCOTUS etc etc. Article 1 are tribunal judges, Article 1 federal judges don't have the same protections as Article 3 judges. Differences for Article 1 judges are, they do not have life tenure, and their salaries are controlled by Congress. That's the 10 cent answer, Hawg can give you the $50 twirl

blindey said:

---

Yeah the rates going that high is basically my firm's play. We are all big law alums, all former federal clerks, but we don't hire younger than 3d year lawyers and our only real overhead is our lease, so we can get our rates 30-40% below what you'd be paying for the same (we are really much better) quality work. It's almost too easy.

---

Boutique firm. Like that a lot. Again not intended in an offensive way. Think the overall practice would be improved if the mega firms were broken up.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

You're confusing Title 1, 3, 7, warrants/surveillance, and Article 1, 3, Judges. Article 3 federal judges are appointed for life by the POTUS. Appellate judges SCOTUS etc etc. Article 1 are tribunal judges, Article 1 federal judges don't have the same protections as Article 3 judges. Differences for Article 1 judges are, they do not have life tenure, and their salaries are controlled by Congress. That's the 10 cent answer, Hawg can give you the $50 twirl

---

Cool! I thought it had to do with judges who have various levels of clearance, SCI, etc.

Thanks!

So there must be a 4th reason: They were really scared that Flynn would expose their scheme to remove Trump.

Title 1 warrant is the covert search, data mine, etc. FISA on Americans FISC Judge needed in the secret court, probable cause etc. Title 3 is a wire tap, DNA, pen-scribe, door kick, physical whatever . Can be a Judge or magistrate. Title 7 covers the foreign surveillance FISA and commonly called 702 it's a warrantless act and 702 permits the government to target for surveillance foreign persons located outside the United States for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information. The unmasking is departmental head or was until Barry changed the rules.

Above: General Flynn, a surfer, for months had a giant surfing wave as the background banner for his twitter page. Then in late April he changed the background to relatively calm surfing conditions.

Below: Today, he changed the background to a setting sun and receding clouds, indicating the storm was clearing.

(Also note in the tweet that General Flynn follows the former Imperator Rex -- I posted that fact on our thread once before. Rex had reported that General Flynn once sent him a DM.)

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/05/04/kerry-quietly-seeking-salvage-iran-deal-helped-craft/2fTkGON7xvaNbO0YbHECUL/story.html

---

If they really want to dust off the Logan Act, seems this is what it was intended to stop.

Why is he stepping down again? Who's replacing him ?