What is so damning here is Jesse Liu's continued refusal to tell Brandon Van Grack to step down. A prosecutor is compromised. Move him/her off the line of fire. Every damn DA in every city over 50,000 knows that.
Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts
7,547,794 Views |
49291 Replies |
Last: 3 hrs ago by fullback44
Statement just released by the IG IC (September 30, 2019):
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf
Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints
Quote:
.....In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.
You can read the whole statement above -- 3 pages long. BS argument that first hand information was not required in the statute. If the IG IC wants to argue about what the statute says, than Professor Cleveland's quoting of the statute (listed on previous page of our thread) clearly spells out the the whistleblower was not authorized to file such a complaint as the offense cited did not meet the criteria spelled out in the statute (re-quoted below):Quote:
The ICWPA defines an "urgent concern" as involving one of three circumstances. In this case, the Ukraine "whistleblower" premised his complaint on only the first statutory definition, which provides that "an urgent concern" includes: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
The key here is the italicized language: Something is an "urgent concern" only if the misconduct is "relating to the funding, administration, or operation of intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence."
The whistleblower's complaint did not accuse the president of misconduct related "to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity." Rather, he charged Trump with "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election" (an allegation the transcript negates, in any event).
The above NYTs article about Trump pressuring Australia's leader to helpt Barr investigate has already been debunked! There was a letter dated May 28, 2019.....which speaks for itself.drcrinum said:
The actual article is paywalled to me.
(And Barr just returned from Italy -- it wasn't for a vacation. I'll wager Trump greased the skids for Barr's visit for the same purpose...to uncover the origins of the SpyGate plot.)
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-letter-from-australian-official-emerges-that-casts-doubt-on-new-york-times-report/
Quote:
......
The letter, reported by Nine News Australia's Kerrie Yaxley, is dated May 28, 2019, from Australian Ambassador Joe Hockey to Barr, and states:
https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/morrison-puts-australia-first-and-avoids-unwise-choices-20190922-p52tpp
Quote:
I've never met Donald Trump and he may not want me in the White House anyway. One of his election campaign woodchucks told me the Russians might use intelligence they'd collected to damage Hillary Clinton's election campaign.
Ever since then, in order to cover for his incompetence in telling a High Commissioner - an ambassador - something as extraordinary as that, the woodchuck has been spinning the most extraordinary conspiracy theory I've ever been involved in. I was part of a nefarious intelligence ring not of Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians but of America's closest allies that wanted to destroy Trump's candidacy! I was a Lefty campaigning with MI6, ASIS (Australian Secret Intelligence Service) and - of all countries - Ukraine - for Hillary!
.....
This is an interesting read. Downer poo-poos Papadopoulos in his opening paragraphs (above), & then he writes a lengthy treatise praising everything Trump has done & citing specific examples...except that he thinks Trump is too abusive & pours fuel on the flames. Very peculiar IMO.
Appears this is setting up to be a VERY big October!! Can't wait to switch everything unfold!
https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/30/john-kiriakou-what-was-this-cia-officer-thinking/
Quote:
.....That Zaid is involved in this case leads me to believe that the CIA whistleblower is either an idiot who has no idea what he's gotten himself into or he's been directed to make his "disclosure."
Experts always say that when you want to know what is really being discussed in a complicated and sensitive report, you must read the footnotes. Well, if you really want to know what's happening in this impeachment scandal, look closely at the peripheral players. That's where the real story is.
Very interesting read by a former CIA whistleblower who was indicted by the Obama Administration & served 23 months in jail.
I put this on another thread, but it appears to be the basis for this whole Schiff fiasco.
As best I can tell, the Democrats knew Dan Coates was resigning in July, and saw an opening. It was effective on August 15th.
It appears that the "Engulf and Devour" section of the Dem party saw this coming in July, knew there would be either a new DNI, or an acting DNI, and it was a perfect time to take advantage of the change of leadership. So, a Dem stooge was either chosen, volunteered, or was made up, and the game was on.
So this is all because Dan Coates resigned? It certainly seems that way!
As best I can tell, the Democrats knew Dan Coates was resigning in July, and saw an opening. It was effective on August 15th.
It appears that the "Engulf and Devour" section of the Dem party saw this coming in July, knew there would be either a new DNI, or an acting DNI, and it was a perfect time to take advantage of the change of leadership. So, a Dem stooge was either chosen, volunteered, or was made up, and the game was on.
So this is all because Dan Coates resigned? It certainly seems that way!
Meanwhile in the Flynn case, Sydney Powell just dropped a big ol' shiny turd in Brandon Van Grack's punch bowl.
In a status filing yesterday
In a status filing yesterday
Quote:
As highlighted, Michael Flynn -under pressure from Mueller's prosecutors- signed a plea to avoid his son, Mike Flynn Jr., being indicted/accused. As we suspected General Flynn signed a plea deal to avoid seeing his son charged with a fabricated FARA violation.
It is a smart strategy for Flynn's defense to inform Judge Sullivan -now- of the undue pressure and threat from Mueller's assigned prosecutor Brandon Van Grack.
First, this information will help Judge Sullivan reconcile many of the troubling aspects behind the Flynn plea. Against ongoing defense and prosecution arguments about Brady evidence, the highlight in this short status update will not be missed; it will reconcile to the court why Flynn's defense attorney is seeking supplemental information.
More hereQuote:
Mueller's corrupt prosecutors used legally sketchy FARA violations, and threats therein, against many of their targets. Those tenuous legal theories have now been dispatched in two separate cases: Bijan Rafiekian (Flynn Intel Group), and Greg Craig (Obama White House). [Additionally the DOJ dropped the FARA investigation of Tony Podesta and Vin Weber for the same reasons.]
As a result of prior cases showing malicious prosecutions under false FARA pretenses, Flynn's defense doesn't have to try and convince Judge Sullivan that Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr. were being threatened by those same heavy-handed DOJ tactics. It is now self-evident those tactics were deployed; the prosecution would be silly to try and deny their threats were present.
This explanation to Judge Sullivan, in combination with prior judicial outcomes, creates a fulsome and self-evident picture for Sullivan to see what was taking place in the background without defense attorney Sidney Powell having to try and explain.
Here's Professor Cleveland's take on the same filing by Powell:
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/new-evidence-suggests-prosecutors-pressured-michael-flynn-to-lie/
https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/new-evidence-suggests-prosecutors-pressured-michael-flynn-to-lie/
Quote:
.....These facts reek of prosecutorial blackmail: Flynn Sr. better plead guilty or the government will charge his son with a FARA violation, even though there was no crime -- as the Virginia district court concluded in the Rafiekian case. And, to make sure Flynn didn't balk, the prosecutors showed they were serious by indicting Flynn's FIG partner. Then, to further ensure his cooperation, they sought to have him testify under oath that he too committed a FARA offense.
But when Flynn refused to testify that he knowingly violated the FARA law, the government attempted to retaliate and further threaten Flynn, by naming him a co-conspirator and putting Flynn Jr. on the witness list and having an FBI agent contact the son. What possible purpose for this was there, other than intimidation?
Whether Judge Sullivan sees it that way won't be known for some time. But Powell is steadily building the case that the charges against Flynn should be tossed for egregious prosecutorial misconduct, and she is doing it by highlighting facts revealed by her review of the limited record to which she has access. How much more could she expose if the court grants her motion to compel and directs the government to turn over the evidence it has withheld from Flynn's defense team?
And there is second issue bubbling up in the Flynn case, the conduct or shall I say "misconduct" of Flynn's former attorneys, Burling, Covington. The same firm represented Flynn's company FIG, regarding which federal disclosure forms they were required to file related to the deal with Inovo BV, a Dutch company with Turkish ties. Thus negating any intent to knowingly violate the FARA law (which is a very flawed law in a criminal setting as we have seen from the results of the two Mueller cases being tossed).
And indeed, when the FARA questions first arised following Flynn's OpEd (First Amendment issue), Burling, Covington argued about the necessity to file under the circumstances. Those circumstances were that Trump won the election, Flynn was going to be in the administration and FIG was being disbanded. No ongoing matter nor future matters were at stake. They were trying to cover their butts.
But then when it became clear that Flynn was going to be prosecuted anyway, despite the lack of intent, they should have withdrawn as Flynn's counsel and informed his new counsel that they would testify on Flynn's behalf on the intent issue. (Providing Flynn waived privilege.) That's still a meh type of activity warranting a payout to Flynn for damages for malpractice.
But the absolute worst thing Burling, Covington could possibly, they then did. They allowed their client to plea guilty to a crime they knew he didn't commit and produced their client in court to commit perjury. Knowingly adducing perjured testimony in a court proceeding is a huge no-no.
In the end, it doesn't matter if their client wanted to plead guilty to protect his son, their advice should have been against such action precisely because of the perjury issue. If Flynn persisted, they had a duty to withdraw from his further representation. However, the fact that Flynn did plead guilty would lessen the malpractice question on their original advice that FARA did not apply. So it can be inferred that Burling, Covington had a personal motivation for allowing Flynn to plead guilty.
Again, very bad pookie.
And indeed, when the FARA questions first arised following Flynn's OpEd (First Amendment issue), Burling, Covington argued about the necessity to file under the circumstances. Those circumstances were that Trump won the election, Flynn was going to be in the administration and FIG was being disbanded. No ongoing matter nor future matters were at stake. They were trying to cover their butts.
But then when it became clear that Flynn was going to be prosecuted anyway, despite the lack of intent, they should have withdrawn as Flynn's counsel and informed his new counsel that they would testify on Flynn's behalf on the intent issue. (Providing Flynn waived privilege.) That's still a meh type of activity warranting a payout to Flynn for damages for malpractice.
But the absolute worst thing Burling, Covington could possibly, they then did. They allowed their client to plea guilty to a crime they knew he didn't commit and produced their client in court to commit perjury. Knowingly adducing perjured testimony in a court proceeding is a huge no-no.
In the end, it doesn't matter if their client wanted to plead guilty to protect his son, their advice should have been against such action precisely because of the perjury issue. If Flynn persisted, they had a duty to withdraw from his further representation. However, the fact that Flynn did plead guilty would lessen the malpractice question on their original advice that FARA did not apply. So it can be inferred that Burling, Covington had a personal motivation for allowing Flynn to plead guilty.
Again, very bad pookie.
First of all, if Flynn would start a GoFundMe page under the name of "Flynn the Whistleblower", he'd have his attorneys fees paid by tonight.
Can judges tell when the government, at any level, is trying to draw out a case to drain the victim of resources to pay? I suspect it's the job of his/her attorneys to attack that method, but it sure seems to happen a lot.
Can judges tell when the government, at any level, is trying to draw out a case to drain the victim of resources to pay? I suspect it's the job of his/her attorneys to attack that method, but it sure seems to happen a lot.
Frankly, I am way more concerned with the amount of ex parte communications with the judge that are being allowed these days. Those are usually reserved for extreme circumstances and emergencies. Not for status reports and the like.fasthorses05 said:
First of all, if Flynn would start a GoFundMe page under the name of "Flynn the Whistleblower", he'd have his attorneys fees paid by tonight.
Can judges tell when the government, at any level, is trying to draw out a case to drain the victim of resources to pay? I suspect it's the job of his/her attorneys to attack that method, but it sure seems to happen a lot.
https://www.scribd.com/document/428288771/Govt-Response
Quote:
.....CONCLUSION
The defendant's motion is not a search for Brady material. It is a fishing expedition in hopes of advancing conspiracy theories related to the U.S. government's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The government has already provided any evidence that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material for the defendant at sentencing. Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
Van Grack signed it, but under Jessie Liu's name.
That's 41 pages of hide-the-ball. The upshot? Van Grack is saying, "We will neither confirm nor deny that there are materials responsive to the Brady requests but we won't give them anything anyway, nanny, nanny, boo, boo, we don't have to."
While I viscerally dislike Van Grack, I kinda don't blame him in choosing this response. To me, he's chosen these types of actions before, why stop now, even having a previously poor experience with this judge.aggiehawg said:
That's 41 pages of hide-the-ball. The upshot? Van Grack is saying, "We will neither confirm nor deny that there are materials responsive to the Brady requests but we won't give them anything anyway, nanny, nanny, boo, boo, we don't have to."
Seems kinda ballsy to me, not to mention high-minded and arrogant (of that I'm certain).
Hey, look over there....
Are they trying to Buffalo the judge by implying that ruling against the government this case puts the judge alliance with right wing conspiracists?
Meanwhile, counsel for the Judiciary Committee trying to get the grand jury material from the Mueller investigation have upped the ante. Not only was Team Mueller incompetent but Trump lied to them and they covered it up by using grand jury redactions.
And where the hell did Manafort's trial enter into this? Trump never said a word about Manafort in the call to Zelensky. Talk about throwing crap against the wall.
Politico
Quote:
"Not only could those materials demonstrate the president's motives for obstructing the special counsel's investigation, they also could reveal that Trump was aware of his campaign's contacts with WikiLeaks," the lawyers wrote in the filing, which was in response to the Justice Department's opposition to the disclosure of the grand-jury information.
To back up their claim, the House's legal team led by House General Counsel Douglas Letter cited a passage in Mueller's report about former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's testimony that he "recalled" Trump asking to be kept "updated" about WikiLeaks' disclosures of Democratic National Committee emails. There is a grand-jury redaction in that passage, the lawyers note.
"The text redacted ... and any underlying evidence to which it may point are critical to the committee's investigation," they wrote.
Quote:
"Those materials therefore have direct bearing on whether the president was untruthful, and further obstructed the special counsel's investigation, when in providing written responses to the special counsel's questions he denied being aware of any communications between his campaign and WikiLeaks," they added.
Good luck with that. No floor vote, nor formal impeachment inquiry. And Article I Committees are not the same as Article III courts. Under the Constitution, the Senate is the trier of fact but only after a vote on Articles of Impeachment have been passed by the House. We'll see how far that argument goes under the standards of McKeever.Quote:
Monday's filing also referenced the most recent scandal engulfing the Trump White House the president's efforts to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden which caused Speaker Nancy Pelosi to formalize an impeachment inquiry. Letter, the House general counsel, and his deputies argued that Mueller's grand-jury evidence could also be useful for the House's ongoing Ukraine probe.
"Those events may also be relevant to the House's investigation of the president's solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election," the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump's efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
More specifically, they said Mueller's grand-jury materials "would further" the House Intelligence Committee's investigation of Trump's alleged attempts to pressure Ukraine to prosecute individuals who testified against Manafort.
The House lawyers also argued in Monday's filing that the Justice Department has no grounds to determine whether the House is engaged in an impeachment inquiry, which is the House's central claim to Mueller's grand jury files.
And where the hell did Manafort's trial enter into this? Trump never said a word about Manafort in the call to Zelensky. Talk about throwing crap against the wall.
Politico
Did I miss something? When did Trump ask for help in the 2020 election?aggiehawg said:
"Those events may also be relevant to the House's investigation of the president's solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election," the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump's efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
He uttered the word "Biden" within the course of a 30 minute conversation primarily about corruption in the US and Ukraine and how that affected the 2016 election.will25u said:Did I miss something? When did Trump ask for help in the 2020 election?aggiehawg said:
"Those events may also be relevant to the House's investigation of the president's solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election," the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump's efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
Presto! Chango! Trump is soliciting Ukraine's help in the 2020 election./Dems.
Ah yes. I guess I just didn't put it together that way. I still find it really odd, that we cannot hold someone to account for their crimes if they are running for President. And Trump who doesn't seem to have done anything wrong is branded a horrible person, and in need of impeachment.aggiehawg said:He uttered the word "Biden" within the course of a 30 minute conversation primarily about corruption in the US and Ukraine and how that affected the 2016 election.will25u said:Did I miss something? When did Trump ask for help in the 2020 election?aggiehawg said:
"Those events may also be relevant to the House's investigation of the president's solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election," the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump's efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
Presto! Chango! Trump is soliciting Ukraine's help in the 2020 election./Dems.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/30/two-gop-senators-say-ukraine-worked-with-dnc-to-un/
Quote:
Two top Republican senators on Monday asked the Justice Department to investigate claims that Democrats worked with Ukrainian officials to dig up dirt on President Trump ahead of the 2016 election.
GOP Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa sent a letter to Attorney General William P. Barr asking for more information about whether Ukrainian officials sought to undermine Mr. Trump's campaign. They also want to know more about 2020 Democratic presidential front-runner, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden's interactions with Ukrainian officials.
"Ukrainian efforts abetted by a U.S. political party to interfere in the 2016 election should not be ignored," the senators wrote. "Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny, and the American people have a right to know when foreign forces attempted to undermine our Democrat processes."
.....
The senators asked Mr. Barr to respond by Oct. 14.
Link to the letter not provided in the article.
Don't forget that Ron Johnson was accompanied by Dem Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy during a recent trip to Ukraine. The same Senator Murphy who changed his tune as to what was discussed with Ukrainian officials immediately after the trip and then after the whistle blower stuff hit.
will25u said:Did I miss something? When did Trump ask for help in the 2020 election?aggiehawg said:
"Those events may also be relevant to the House's investigation of the president's solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election," the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump's efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
The Democrats' whole argument of impropriety rests solely on the presumption that because Biden is a political opponent of Donaldus Magnus that Trump would derive political gain. Only because an investigation and findings of misconduct by Biden could work to the political advantage of Trump, they are imputing the President's request for Ukraine to investigate Biden to have the single purpose of being a non-monetary campaign donation solicited from a foreign government. If Biden were not a Presidential candidate their argument would be nullified.
In fact, it is nullified already because the anti-corruption treaty completely justifies the President asking Zelenskiy to get investigate the veracity of Biden's own words about coercing the Ukrainians to drop the investigation of his cokehead son.
it was a follow up to a letter Grassley sent 2 years ago!
Grassley Letter to AG Barr
Grassley Letter to AG Barr
"And liberals, being liberals, will double down on failure." - dedgod
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,838
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txaggie_08 said:
Appears this is setting up to be a VERY big October!! Can't wait to switch everything unfold!
yeah...given how all this is going i'm not holding my breath.
Lost count of the number of times I've heard or read "to dig up dirt".
The media needs to be drained too.
The media needs to be drained too.
From your link:
Brings us right back to Hunter Biden and Burisma.Quote:
The raid was reportedly related to an investigation into whether bank officials exceeded their authority in concluding agreements with domestic and international recruitment and consulting companies.
PrivatBank was nationalized in 2016 with the backing of the IMF because risky lending practices left the bank with a shortfall of billions of dollars.
After its nationalization the state pumped nearly $6 billion into the bank to keep it afloat.
The bank's new management, appointed by the country's central bank, has since initiated litigation domestically and in foreign jurisdictions, including in Britain and the United States, to recover what it says was money stolen from the financial institution via alleged money laundering and fraudulent loans.
A civil lawsuit was filed in the U.S. state of Delaware on May 21, one day after President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was sworn into office.
The bank's co-founder, Ihor Kolomoyskiy, has been vocal about his intention to regain control of the bank.
Couldn't it be argued the Joe Biden is not, in fact, a political opponent of Trump in anything but the broadest sense, i.e. he is a member of the opposing party and doesn't like Trump or his policies?Ulysses90 said:will25u said:Did I miss something? When did Trump ask for help in the 2020 election?aggiehawg said:
"Those events may also be relevant to the House's investigation of the president's solicitation of Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election," the lawyers wrote, referencing Trump's efforts to curtail the Mueller probe.
The Democrats' whole argument of impropriety rests solely on the presumption that because Biden is a political opponent of Donaldus Magnus that Trump would derive political gain. Only because an investigation and findings of misconduct by Biden could work to the political advantage of Trump, they are imputing the President's request for Ukraine to investigate Biden to have the single purpose of being a non-monetary campaign donation solicited from a foreign government. If Biden were not a Presidential candidate their argument would be nullified.
In fact, it is nullified already because the anti-corruption treaty completely justifies the President asking Zelenskiy to get investigate the veracity of Biden's own words about coercing the Ukrainians to drop the investigation of his cokehead son.
Biden isn't running for president, he's running to be the candidate of the DNC for president. He HOPES to win the nomination and run for president, but even if you assume he is the leader of the pack, he still is not a candidate for president. There haven't been any primaries. The notion of a leader at this point is advanced guesswork at best.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Need a new official thread for whistlegate/impeachment...maybe i'll go start one.
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
18h ago
1.9k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.7k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
Three Things: FAQs answered, eyes on 2025 prospects & more
by Jason Howell