I can't stand it when I'm soooo certain of the actions others should take. Meaning I too don't understand, but want to pick up the phone and call Barr, since I assume you and I are the only ones who know, which isn't correct.

Seriously, how could the DOJ successfully argue the memos aren't part of an on going investigation? To me, that's some damned good sales, or a deep state judge.

Link is blocked at work... WONDER WHY... Could be some interesting info in there.

drcrinum said:

---

As far as committing a crime...methinks both Ferrante & Kelly make good prospects for immunity deals.

---

Bingo!

I knew it. The moment I read about Comey's wife and 3/4 daughters wearing vagina hats and going to the women's march around the inaugural and Comey staying on at FBI, I knew he would be knee deep in taking him down.

A man doesn't get to go against the women of the house like that without repercussions. Not unless they know he is going to take down Trump. Effing coward.

The Republicans simply have to ask Mueller about this Comey report and get him on the record. He'll dance around it as much as he can and likely refuse to answer. If he (or his DOJ lawyer) invokes ongoing investigation exception, then ask if that investigation is the result of one of his redacted referrals?

Where I am going with this is if Mueller actually obstructed justice with respect to Comey. Team Mueller obviously had jurisdiction under the "matters arising from and during the investigation" to make a referral on Comey, nee even bring an indictment himself. Did he? Or did he not, and why?

Unsure if anyone from Team Mueller is still going to testify in a closed session but if there is one, that subject should be thoroughly addressed.

First of all, isn't there only 5 minutes for each House member to ask, and get a corresponding answer?

Secondly, wasn't Ken Starr as ruthless as Mueller? I realize the situation is completely different, as the Trump administration was compliant in releasing all documents demanded, but Starr was always persistent and thorough.

Lastly, thanks for putting up with my questions. They're really for all you legal types, but you get to them the quickest.

Any ideas what he means?

Conflict of interest?

fasthorses05 said:

---

First of all, isn't there only 5 minutes for each House member to ask, and get a corresponding answer?

Secondly, wasn't Ken Starr as ruthless as Mueller? I realize the situation is completely different, as the Trump administration was compliant in releasing all documents demanded, but Starr was always persistent and thorough.

Lastly, thanks for putting up with my questions. They're really for all you legal types, but you get to them the quickest.

---

The ranking Republican member gets to read an opening statement. There were be a copy of the Real Clear Investigations article on the table in front of Mueller. He will be asked to read that article if he hasn't already to familiarize himself with contents as he will be questioned about it later.

Per a previous arrangement, one or two GOP reps will give their time to the designated rep to have ten to fifteen minutes total time in which to examine Mueller on that topic.

Did you die?

pagerman @ work said:

---

Did you die?

---

Who is that addressed to, exactly?

aggiehawg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Did you die?

---

Who is that addressed to, exactly?

---

Wow. I apologize. I meant to quote will25u for context. It was a "3 simple words" attempt.

Sorry for the confusion. It's been that kind of day.

drcrinum said:

---

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/22/comey_under_scrutiny_for_own_inquiry_and_misleading_trump_119584.html

Quote:

---

.....Now an answer is emerging. Sources tell RealClearInvestigations that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will soon file a report with evidence indicating that Comey was misleading the president. Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent.

---

---

Back to my favorite ... in addition to Obstruction of Justice ... 'Conspiracy to Defraud the Gov' if they can show intent and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

923. 18 U.S.C. 371CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES

Quote:

---

Quote:
In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways:

They cheat the government out of money or property;

They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or

They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
926. GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY

The fraud of wrongful use of a government instrumentality is characterized by the lack of threatened or real pecuniary or proprietary loss, or obstruction of governmental activity. An example of such a scheme might be the use of false United States Internal Revenue Service receipts to defraud private persons of money. Furthermore, the United States has the right to ensure that funds be administered in accordance with law and honesty without corrupt influence or bribery.

Thus, a scheme to defraud the United States can range from directly cheating or swindling money or property from the government to simply using the government in a wrongful fashion with the only injury being to the pride and integrity of the government. The case law demonstrates, moreover, that any injury to the integrity of the government is sufficient.

---

Very nicely played!

So cram that down Mueller's throat.

He is one of the taints?

Federal judge sides with Russian company, rebukes Mueller, Barr

Quote:

---

A federal judge has chastised former special counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General William P. Barr for stating that the Russian government was behind election year social media trolling when there is no evidence presented by prosecutors.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich culminated a secret legal battle between the Justice Department and the Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting LLC.

The judge this month began unsealing legal briefs and transcripts, which reveal that the release of Mr. Mueller's 448-page report and Mr. Barr's public statements triggered Concord attorney Eric A. Dubelier to seek contempt proceedings against both.

Mr. Dubelier said Mr. Mueller prejudiced a potential jury by stating that the Kremlin ran the social media campaign, which the federal government says Concord funded. That connection isn't contained in the special counsel's February 2018 indictment against Concord.

"That's not alleged in the indictment primarily because there is no evidence to support that it was. There is none," Mr. Dubelier told the judge at a closed May 28 hearing for which a transcript was just unsealed.

---

Don't know if already posted or not.

Quote:

---

The conclusion at this stage means Russian President Vladimir Putin backed one major election intervention: his military intelligence hacking of Democratic Party computers and sending stolen materials to WikiLeaks for release.

But he might not have been involved in the parallel social media trolling, though U.S. media reported that it was part of a larger Kremlin conspiracy.

Judge Friedrich concurred that there was a lack of evidence.

Court observers say Mr. Mueller might have withheld evidence from his public report and from the court case for security reasons.

---

What a load of hooey. There was no shortage of ex parte sealed materials provided to the court in this case. Far too many for a non-CIPA proceeding.

And while this has been discussed before, it is always good to remind people how poorly Team Mueller drafted the indictment in a case they never expected to see the inside of the courtroom. If they never expected any of the defendants to show up in court, they felt free to make up anything they wanted and did.

This case is still hanging on by a thread as is the Rafekian case where the government is making nonsensical arguments over jury instructions based the evidence that they failed to produce during the case in chief.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454185-how-mueller-deputy-andrew-weissmanns-offer-to-an-oligarch-could-boomerang

Quote:

---

How Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann's offer to an oligarch could boomerang on DOJ

The ink was still drying on special counsel Robert Mueller's appointment papers when his chief deputy, the famously aggressive and occasionally controversial prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, made a bold but secret overture in early June 2017.

Weissmann quietly reached out to the American lawyers for Ukrainian oligarch Dmitry Firtash with a tempting offer: Give us some dirt on Donald Trump in the Russia case, and Team Mueller might make his 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away.

The specifics of the never-before-reported offer were confirmed to me by multiple sources with direct knowledge, as well as in contemporaneous defense memos I read......

---

A John Solomon report. Obviously a leak prior to Weissmann's testimony on Thursday. Complicated read but well worth it. Weismann was even giving them info they could use to make up stuff on Trump. Weismann, the snake.

Quote:

---

According to a defense memo recounting Weissmann's contacts, the prosecutor claimed the Mueller team could "resolve the Firtash case" in Chicago and neither the DOJ nor the Chicago U.S. Attorney's Office "could interfere with or prevent a solution," including withdrawing all charges. "The complete dropping of the proceedings was doubtless on the table," according to the defense memo.

Firtash's team suspected Weissmann's claim was exaggerated. While Mueller had full authority to investigate the Russia case, he wasn't an independent counsel separate of the DOJ but, rather, a special counsel subject to the attorney general's oversight.

The third red flag came in how much Weissmann communicated to Firstash's lawyers about his hopes for the Ukrainian oligarch's testimony.

Prosecutors in plea deals typically ask a defendant for a written proffer of what they can provide in testimony and identify the general topics that might interest them. But Weissmann appeared to go much further in a July 7, 2017, meeting with Firtash's American lawyers and FBI agents, sharing certain private theories of the nascent special counsel's investigation into Trump, his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Russia, according to defense memos.

---

Waaaayyyy above Weissmann's pay grade to make that offer.

Add another question Republicans will need to ask Mueller.

Barr is reining him in. That is actually a good thing.

Mueller went rogue in the writing of that report strayed far, far from the facts that he could even prove. Even the indictments showed that beyond a reasonable doubt. No true objective lawyer would have signed that speculative trope.

https://philantropyinthemaking.com/2019/07/22/trying-to-unravel-the-kain-knot/

This is an interesting complicated article written by a non-lawyer but which should interest lawyers following this thread. First off he points out the conflict of Interest involving Flynn's former lawyers Covington & Burling which Aggiehawg has noted on multiple occasions:

Quote:

---

...One of the main pieces of information to come out of this shake up is the conflict of interest with Flynn's old law firm. They represented both Flynn and Flynn Intel Group which allowed them to selectively share information with prosecutors....

---

Another point: One of the defendants in the FARA case, Bijan Kian (Bijan Rafiekian). is also represented by Covington & Burling as well as others including Trout Cacheris & Solomon.



Now the kicker. Remember Gregory Craig, Clinton's special advisor & Obama's White House counsel, who was indicted by Mueller on FARA violations? Well, Craig is claiming that why should he & Manafort be indicted for FARA violations when other people (lawyers like Covington & Burling as well as Trout Cacheris & Solomon) did the same thing but were not indicted. See where this is going?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_zPDsuW4AAOYR2?format=jpg

Quote:

---

...The law firms in the Flynn/Kian case are the same law firms that Craig plans to expose as part of his defense. From Craig's defense it doesn't look like the firms properly filed based on Craig being prosecuted and what happened with Manafort. Coincidentally, the Flynn/Kian case is about FARA as well. The lawyers seem to be the ones screwing with the case as well, not the actual defendants....

---

Edit: Click on the above picture link which didn't open; gives details about Craig's defense.

He's friends with Trump. Will this help in getting down to who The UK acted in this coup attempt?

We'll know soon when we start seeing hit pieces and distraction articles increase.

will25u said:

---

Starting in on the IG report. Obviously they know it will be bad for them.

Adam Schiff says DOJ inspector general's work is 'tainted' ahead of FISA abuse report

---

lol Adam Schiff has no credibility

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/23/the_mueller_reports_footnotes_to_contradictory_119658.html

Interesting read in preparation for Mueller's testimony tomorrow.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/07/22/republicans-dont-screw-up-the-mueller-hearing/

Good read. Why Republicans at the Mueller hearing should focus on the Trump Tower Meeting (Note: There is not a single mention of Glenn Simpson & Fusion GPS in the entire Mueller Report.) & the Flynn investigation (The dubious Logan Act).

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1153633357361799169.html

Quote:

---

...3/ when Mueller expanded scope of investigation to include obstruction, new and much more complicated Mueller conflict issues arose than for collusion. A fresh and more searching DOJ conflict assessment ought to have been done, but no such study appears to have taken place.....

7/ DOJ appears to have done an ordinary law firm conflict assessment under 5 CFR 2635.502 at the time of Mueller's appointment (more about this below) and issued a 5 CFR 2635.502(d) waiver on May 18, the day after Mueller's appointment. Notwithstanding various claims in Mueller
8/ there is NO evidence that DOJ ever carried out a conflict assessment of ANY of Trump's other conflict allegations, not even of the conflict arising from Mueller's longstanding and well-known personal relationship with Comey. The Mueller Report is very dishonest on this point.
9/ here's how the expansion of Mueller's investigation to obstruction results (or ought to have resulted) in a dramatic change to the conflict of interest equation.
10/ in addition to conflict of interest regulation 5 CFR 2635.502 (which applies to all government employees), DOJ employees participating in an investigation must also comply with conflict of interest regulation 28 CFR 45.2 - the regulation under which Sessions was recused
11/ under 5 CFR 45.2, Mueller had to recuse if he had a "personal or political relationship with (1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution", unless DOJ issues a written
12/ determination that Mueller's "participation would not create an appearance of a conflict of interest likely to affect the public perception of the integrity of the investigation or prosecution."

---

Quote:

---

13/ Comey was not "substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the [collusion] investigation" and therefore no 28 CFR 45.2 assessment was triggered in regard to Comey-Mueller personal relationship for the collusion investigation described in Appointment Order
14/ but Comey was "substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the [OBSTRUCTION] investigation" when Mueller expanded scope of activities to include obstruction........

---

The remaining portion of the thread dwells extensively on the close personal relationship between Mueller & Comey. This is important because in the "obstruction investigation" portion of Mueller's report, Comey's memos & FBI interviews & media leaks played a major role.

As to the cursory review done within one day of Mueller's appointment, did DOJ even know McCabe had opened an obstruction investigation over Comey's firing? I think not because otherwise they would have raised a red flag about it. They might have been overruled by Rosenstein (who had worked directly under Mueller in past years) but at least the question would have been raised.

That becomes a very sticky wicket when it came to the over reliance on Comey's memos within the Mueller Report. Comey's credibility and more specifically his blatant motivations for manipulating and fabricating his account of meetings and conversations with Trump were never questioned by Team Mueller.

I also must quibble a bit about Mueller's jurisdiction being "expanded" to include obstruction as obstruction during the course of any criminal probe is always on the table. And DOJ should have known that in determining whether Mueller had a conflict.

Sessions was neutered and indeed completely in the dark as he was with Trump when Mueller's appointment was announced. Rosenstein was running the show. He wanted his old boss, Mueller and the ethics folks just rubber stamped his decision without any serious investigation.

Oh good grief!