|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 6, 2020 16:58:14 GMT -6
A key witness told Mueller’s special counsel team in April of 2018 that the Russian collusion evidence found in Ukraine known as the infamous ‘black ledger’ was fabricated. Two key pieces of so-called “Russian collusion” evidence have now been debunked — the fake Russia dossier and now the ‘black ledger’ which was used to smear Manafort. Despite knowing there was no “Trump-Russia collusion” Mueller kept his witch hunt going because he wanted to interfere in the 2018 midterms and flip the House from red to blue. John Solomon reported: justthenews.com/key-witness-told-team-mueller-russia-collusion-evidence-found.htmlThe ledger document, which suddenly appeared in Kiev during the 2016 U.S. election, showed alleged cash payments from Russian-backed politicians in Ukraine to ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. “The ledger was completely made up,” cooperating witness and Manafort business partner Rick Gates told prosecutors and FBI agents, according to a written summary of an April 2018 special counsel’s interview. In a brief interview with Just the News, Gates confirmed the information in the summary. “The black ledger was a fabrication,” Gates said. “It was never real, and this fact has since been proven true.” Gates’ account is backed by several Ukrainian officials who stated in interviews dating to 2018 that the ledger was of suspicious origins and could not be corroborated. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 6, 2020 19:13:06 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/02/06/impeachment-protesters-senate/Protesters gathered outside the U.S. Capitol after the Senate acquitted President Donald Trump of two impeachment charges Wednesday. Here’s what they had to say. “I would vote for a tree stump before I would vote for [Trump],” one woman said.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 6, 2020 23:58:04 GMT -6
Mueller’s “pit bull” Andrew Weissmann admitted the special counsel’s team “tried to get rid of” President Trump by laying a perjury trap.
Of course President Trump didn’t fall for it.
President Trump only submitted written answers to Mueller’s team and refused to sit down for an interview with the special counsel’s prosecutors.
Many believe devil Weissmann was in charge of the entire special counsel operation and Robert Mueller was just the figurehead.
Weissmann’s comments during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC were in response to President Trump’s scorched earth rebuke of the ‘scum’ at the top of the FBI earlier this morning.
Trump blasted “dirty cops” James Comey and “scum” Peter Strzok on Thursday before calling out Mueller’s corruption in his victory speech after the senate voted to acquit him on both articles of impeachment.
“[Trump] never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath — it’s true the same happened in the Mueller case,” Weissmann said.
“Why do you think that is?” Nicolle Wallace asked.
“There’s a classic reason. There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate — so if you notice, the President is happy to talk today…but when it came time for him to put up or shut up…and give an interview under oath, he’s completely silent,” Weissmann added.
WATCH:
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 0:00:06 GMT -6
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA) joined Tucker Carlson on Thursday night following Nancy Pelosi’s shameful display on Tuesday night where she ripped up the President’s copies of his State of the Union Address. Rep. Mike Johnson says Pelosi committed a felony by shredding the President’s SOTU documents. Rep. Mike Johnson: It was totally unprecedented. It was shameless and it was also unlawful, Tucker. A lot of people have been talking about this the last 48 hours and I did a little legal memo to point out to my colleagues that she actually committed a felony when she tore that paper up. It wasn’t just ANY copy of the State of the Union Address it was THE copy, the original. And we have over two centuries of custom and tradition. And, of course, the Constitution calls for the State of the Union Address. When the president delivers the copies to those top legal officers, those two top legislative officers in that co-equal branch of government, those are the official documents of the House. If you tear those up you violate a specific statute in the criminal code. Via Tucker Carlson Tonight: www.foxnews.com/shows/tucker-carlson-tonight |
|
bk2x
Quarantined
Posts: 68
|
Post by bk2x on Feb 7, 2020 10:38:51 GMT -6
Just another law that only applies to the peons and not the govt superstars.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 12:32:41 GMT -6
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-weighs-ouster-of-aide-who-testified-against-trump/ar-BBZJT3EThe White House is weighing a plan to dismiss Alexander Vindman from the National Security Council after he testified in President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, preparing to position the move as part of a broader effort to shrink the foreign policy bureaucracy, two people familiar with the matter said. Any moves would come after the Senate on Wednesday acquitted Trump on a near party-line vote at the conclusion of the two-week impeachment trial. The White House intends to portray any house-cleaning as part of a downsizing of the NSC staff, not retaliation, according to the people.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 12:34:20 GMT -6
President Donald Trump: Well, I thought it was a terrible thing when she ripped up the speech. First of all, it’s an official document. You’re not allowed to. It’s illegal… I thought it was terrible. I thought it was very disrespectful to the chamber. To the country… I think there’s a lot of evil on that side. They’ve gone crazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by redstripe on Feb 7, 2020 12:36:32 GMT -6
Mueller’s “pit bull” Andrew Weissmann admitted the special counsel’s team “tried to get rid of” President Trump by laying a perjury trap. Of course President Trump didn’t fall for it. President Trump only submitted written answers to Mueller’s team and refused to sit down for an interview with the special counsel’s prosecutors. Many believe devil Weissmann was in charge of the entire special counsel operation and Robert Mueller was just the figurehead. Weissmann’s comments during a Thursday appearance on MSNBC were in response to President Trump’s scorched earth rebuke of the ‘scum’ at the top of the FBI earlier this morning. Trump blasted “dirty cops” James Comey and “scum” Peter Strzok on Thursday before calling out Mueller’s corruption in his victory speech after the senate voted to acquit him on both articles of impeachment. “[Trump] never submitted to an interview, he never testified under oath — it’s true the same happened in the Mueller case,” Weissmann said. “Why do you think that is?” Nicolle Wallace asked. “There’s a classic reason. There is legal jeopardy that attaches if you sit for an interview or if you say something under oath to federal prosecutors, to the House, to the Senate — so if you notice, the President is happy to talk today…but when it came time for him to put up or shut up…and give an interview under oath, he’s completely silent,” Weissmann added. WATCH: Jeez Weissmann’s voice. you can see why he was not the mouth piece of the special prosecutors office. bet he never goes before juries. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 16:57:39 GMT -6
Army Lt. Col Alexander Vindman was escorted off the White House grounds and dismissed from the National Security Council Friday afternoon, according to reports. His twin brother Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who served as a lawyer on the NSC was also fired and left with Alex. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported, His twin brother Yevgeny Vindman, a National Security Council attorney, was also fired and walked off the White House grounds alongside him. National Security Council spokesman John Ullyot said: “We do not comment on personnel matters.” www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/alex-vindman-donald-trump-impeachment/index.htmlNaturally, he’s a victim: |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 17:00:23 GMT -6
Nancy Pelosi reaction:
|
|
|
|
Post by Cooter Brown on Feb 7, 2020 17:07:56 GMT -6
Army Lt. Col Alexander Vindman was escorted off the White House grounds and dismissed from the National Security Council Friday afternoon, according to reports. His twin brother Army Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman, who served as a lawyer on the NSC was also fired and left with Alex. CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported, His twin brother Yevgeny Vindman, a National Security Council attorney, was also fired and walked off the White House grounds alongside him. National Security Council spokesman John Ullyot said: “We do not comment on personnel matters.” www.cnn.com/2020/02/07/politics/alex-vindman-donald-trump-impeachment/index.htmlNaturally, he’s a victim: CNN is going apeshit that Vindman is out...teeth gnashing about mistreating an American hero. Mutherfucker's please...when you wear the uniform you can be fired in the blink of an eye. I know a full bird Col that fired a 1stLt...and he straight up told him, "I am firing you because I don't like you". Especially in the officer ranks...it's VERY easy to get fired. Sorry not sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 19:15:34 GMT -6
President Trump is on a roll! Trump on Friday fired EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland shortly after Lt. Col Alex Vindman and his twin were fired and escorted off the White House grounds. “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement. Recall, Gordon Sondland testified in the House impeachment hearings against President Trump. Sondland‘s testimony was revised after his ‘memory was refreshed’ from reading other testimony to reflect what he described as a ‘quid pro quo message’ delivered to Andriy Yermak, a top adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The Democrats harassed Sondland in October during his closed-door interview and accused him of being an agent of shadow foreign policy on Ukraine, and so he changed his story. “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland said in the document. Sondland said in his new testimony that he believed that withholding a $391 million aid package from Ukraine was “ill-advised” but admitted that he didn’t know “when, why or by whom the aid was suspended.” “I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anticorruption statement,” Sondland said So Sondland PRESUMED the aid suspension was linked to Trump’s discussion with Zelensky about the Biden crime family. Good riddance! Trump is on a roll and he’s cleaning house!  |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 19:19:20 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/02/07/trump-fires-ambassador-gordon-sondland/President Donald Trump on Friday fired Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, just hours after firing Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the National Security Council official who testified at House impeachment proceedings against the commander-in-chief. Like Vindman, Sondland testified at the impeachment proceedings. “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately as United States Ambassador to the European Union,” Sondland said in a statement, according to The New York Times. The dual firings came days after Trump was acquitted in the Senate on charges that he abused his power by exerting pressure on Ukraine to open up politically charged investigations. Vindman was escorted out of the White House when he was fired Friday. (RELATED: Lt. Col. Vindman Fired, Escorted From White House Grounds) Both Sondland and Vindman testified about interactions they had in spring and summer 2019 regarding the Trump administration’s policy toward Ukraine. Primis Player Placeholder Sondland, who was a major GOP donor before being chosen as ambassador, testified about his collaboration with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, to set up phone calls and meetings between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman (C), Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, arrives to review his deposition transcript with the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees at the U.S. Capitol on November 7, 2019 in Washington, DC.(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) Sondland told the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 20, 2019, that he believed Giuliani’s requests to Ukrainian officials to open up Biden-related investigations were a quid pro quo in exchange for a White House meeting between Trump and Zelensky. He also said he came to believe Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine in exchange for a Biden probe, though he acknowledged he was never explicitly told by Trump or anyone else that the aid was linked to the Bidens. Vindman, who is Ukrainian-American, testified Nov. 19, 2019, that he was “deeply troubled” by Trump’s actions toward Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 7, 2020 19:27:30 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/02/07/schiff-calls-for-more-investigations-make-sure-the-american-people-understand-trumps-misconduct/Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Friday on NPR’s “Morning Edition” that he would like to continue investigating President Donald Trump’s “misconduct” by hearing testimony from acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Host Steve Inskeep asked, “Two officials, I could name many, but two officials still in the administration that you wanted to hear from — Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Pompeo — do you still want to hear from them?” Schiff said, “I would still like to hear from them. But we have to make the decision about next steps in consultation with our caucus and our leadership.” He added, “what we’ll need to weigh is the need to validate Congress’ oversight authority, the need to make sure the American people understand the full length and breadth of the president’s misconduct, as well as others in the administration that were part of the misconduct. And at the same time, the imperative of keeping our legislative agenda first and foremost and striking the right balance between the two.”
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 9, 2020 4:56:28 GMT -6
All seven House impeachment managers sat down with CNN’s Anderson Cooper Friday evening to complain about Trump’s acquittal.
The impeachment managers argued Trump has not been acquitted because the Senate trial was not fair after their case went up in flames this week.
The House rushed impeachment and brought a weak case with no crimes named in either article of impeachment.
The Senate didn’t even come close to convicting Trump so now the same House Dems who denied Trump due process and blocked GOP witnesses are claiming the Senate trial wasn’t fair.
“I think he’s not been exonerated,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said.
Dem Rep. Jason Crow (CO) followed up and said, “it’s hard to have an acquittal without a fair trial.”
Rep. Val Demings called Trump’s acquittal “fake news.”
“Well, and back to the acquittal part of this, I would consider that fake news, because we did not have a fair trial,” Florida Rep. Val Demings said.
“The president is not exonerated today,” House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler said.
The House has no say whatsoever how the impeachment trial is conducted in the Senate.
The Senate voted several times to block additional witnesses and ultimately voted to acquit Trump on both articles on Wednesday.
Chief Justice Roberts then made it official and declared: “The Senate having tried Donald John Trump, president of the United States against two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives, and two-thirds of the senators present not having found him guilty, it is therefore ordered and judged that he be and is hereby acquitted of the charges in said articles.”
President Trump is acquitted forever no matter what the House Democrats say. Case closed.
WATCH:
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 9, 2020 5:00:48 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-melts-down-over-trumps-acquittal-speech-his-mind-is-dark-angry-disturbingCNN Melts Down Over Trump’s Acquittal Speech: ‘His Mind Is Dark’, ‘Angry’, ‘Disturbing’ Leftist CNN commentator John Harwood and a panel of other left-wing commentators at CNN unloaded on President Donald Trump late this week after he gave his post-impeachment acquittal speech in the White House. “Look, this was a very disturbing tableau for the country,” Harwood said. “It was dark because he’s made clear that his mind is dark. This is someone who is in deep psychological distress right now, self-pitying, insecure, angry.” Harwood later continued by mocking the president, “He doesn’t recognize abstract concepts like right and wrong, like morality or immorality, like true or false.” Leftist Axios reporter Alexi McCammond claimed that Trump was trying to play on “the inherent tribalism that I think a lot of people feel since President Trump was elected.” WATCH: BRIANNA KEILAR: To hear Mitt Romney explain, it really comes from a genuine place of conviction where he searched his searched his soul, he said essentially that he was looking for a reason to convict. But he couldn’t and that was because he had really an oath to God that he couldn’t move past that without feeling like he was breaking that to acquit the President. I was struck by just what a dark place this was in this speech. Other speeches in history strike a somber tone, strike a conciliatory tone, strike a forward looking tone. This was so dark, Nia. NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: Yeah, and surprising. I mean, not surprising that the President can be vindictive, can be petty, can be, you know, frame himself as the victim and want to air grievances all the time, but it felt like this was a real moment, right, where he could have some focus on a forward-looking message for the country, borrow from some of the themes in the hope from the State of the Union, Republicans certainly received that very well, but here he was talking about Bill Clinton, talking — or Hillary Clinton, talking about the FBI agents, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. So it was very, very bizarre, in some ways a missed opportunity. Look, he spent a lot of time yesterday having to look at Mitt Romney on screen all day and give that very passionate address where he talked about his faith and really, in some ways, dismantled the Republicans arguments against impeachment and removing the President from office. So here this was just a long and rambling speech. You know, I was watching it and this was sort of like a session with your therapist, right, where you’re sitting on the couch and you’re kinda talking about the internal emotions that you’re having cause that’s what it sounded like and listen, he’s not going to get over the Mitt Romney thing. That was very deep-wounding to him. He very much prize — prizes the fact that he’s been able to keep Republicans together, and the fact that Mitt Romney has strayed away from the Republican pack in aligning, you know, not aligning himself with the President. I think this is not something he’s going to forgive. KEILAR: I might argue it’s more a dear diary or certainly you’re not getting your money’s worth because a therapist might interject in the middle of that and this was more of like a — this was more just a monologue. John Harwood, you cover him day in and day out. What struck you? JOHN HARWOOD: Look, this was a very disturbing tableau for the country. It was dark because he’s made clear that his mind is dark. This is someone who is in deep psychological distress right now, self-pitying, insecure, angry. He almost said plaintively at the end when he was reading a text from Strzok to Page, where he said I’m a good — I’m not a bad person. He was sort of imploring people to accept that view of him. When Kaitlan and Alexi said, he thinks I did nothing wrong, that sentence stops with the word “I” because, with Donald Trump, if he did it, it’s not wrong. He doesn’t recognize abstract concepts like right and wrong, like morality or immorality, like true or false. He recognizes what is good for him in the moment and what has happened, what Mitt Romney has done by casting that vote, what Nancy — Pelosi has done has felt very, very unpleasant to him. He said impeachment is a very ugly. By going after Romney, the other part of it that I think is striking is that the entire Republican Party reduced to sitting applauding this rambling, disordered set of remarks, and one of the reasons why it is an uncomfortable moment for them is that Mitt Romney, when he gave that speech, said, I’ve looked at the facts. I’ve come to the conclusion and I can’t avoid this. He stripped naked the rationalizations that they have used for their votes. Remember they started off saying, look, the whistleblower broke. They started out saying, well, it would be terrible if there was a quid pro quo, but there’s no evidence of a quick. Now, when we got to the end of the process, Ted Cruz told the White House lawyers well, we all know it’s a quid pro quo and what they’re saying is, yes, it was a quid pro quo. They approved that case but it’s not that big a deal. They were starting from the end point of — of protecting this President and Romney has shown that the — the calculations behind that are pretty hollow. GLORIA BORGER: He is the victim here. KEILAR: Yeah. BORGER: There — this is how he sees himself. He is the victim in all of this. He has done nothing wrong, and as you point out, John, lots of Republicans are now saying, well, the call was inappropriate — he thinks — but not impeachable. He said there is nothing wrong with it, he is the good guy, they are the bad guy, and this is the way this campaign is going to be run. Make no mistake about it. No matter who his opponent is, the world will be divided into good and evil and most of the country, I don’t think, is in the good and evil thing. I think the country looks at politicians and says, well, there are some good things he says, there are some bad things she says. I don’t — you know — [CROSSTALK] HARWOOD: Most of the country is against it. BORGER: That’s right. That’s right. But people don’t see people as black and white. ALEXI MCCAMMOND: And he’s playing on the inherent tribalism that I think a lot of people feel since President Trump was elected and clearly that a lot of people were feeling — BORGER: Absolutely MCCAMMOND: — bubble up, you know, when Obama was President.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 9, 2020 14:02:31 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 9, 2020 14:05:23 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/house-dems-now-investigating-trump-administration-decision-to-end-global-entry-in-new-yorkHouse Dems Now Investigating Trump Administration Decision To End ‘Global Entry’ In New York House Democrats, ready to begin investigating the Trump Administration anew after being thwarted in their efforts to remove the president from office, have demanded information on a Department of Homeland Security decision made late last week, ending the “trusted traveler” and “global entry” programs for New York residents. Homeland Security Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MN) and House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) are demanding documents from the White House outlining when and why the Trump Administration made the decision to “retaliate” against New York for its new, permissive drivers license program. “We write today to express our opposition to the decision by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to discriminate against residents of the State of New York by barring them from enrolling or re-enrolling in four U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Trusted Traveler Programs,” the two lawmakers wrote in a letter issued to the White House late Saturday. “We are concerned that the Department’s policy change may be an improper attempt to use official DHS policy to punish the punish the people of New York because their state government has a political disagreement with the Trump Administration over immigration policy.” “This senseless, retaliatory decision should be immediately reversed,” they demanded, listing a host of DHS documents they’d like to see. Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf announced the department’s new policy barring New Yorkers from using the Transportation Safety Administration’s “Trusted Traveler Program” (TTP) and “Global Entry” program last Wednesday, according to Fox News, linking the decision to New York’s new “Green Light law,” which allows illegal immigrants to obtain a driver’s license, potentially giving those same individuals access to TSA programs that allow them to bypass security screenings. The Green Light Law also cuts off Customs and Border Patrol’s access to individual driving records so that CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot use those records to initiate deportation proceedings. DHS relies on driving records in its TTP investigations; applicants who have a DUI or other serious traffic offense on their record are not approved for the program. The Green Light Law “compromises CBP’s ability to confirm whether an individual applying for TTP membership meets program eligibility requirements,” Wolf said in his letter to New York’s state government outlining the new ban. “This Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS’ s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised.” DHS also served several subpoenas to the New York Department of Corrections last month, seeking information on whether the NYDOC is deliberately not cooperating with immigration officials, according to CNN. New York announced late last week that they intend to sue the Trump Administration to have the ban lifted. House Democrats have restarted a number of investigations into the Trump White House, suspended while the House Democratic caucus pursued an impeachment inquiry stemming from allegations that President Donald Trump traded foreign aid to the Ukraine for an investigation into whether former Vice President Joe Biden abused his power, turning Ukrainian investigators off of an oil and gas company, Burisma, that employed his son, Hunter. If Democrats pursue this investigation, it would likely mark the first new inquiry following Trump’s Senate acquittal.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 10, 2020 13:52:01 GMT -6
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to 74 inspectors general demanding “immediate action to investigate” Trump for ‘instances of retaliation’ against so-called whistleblowers. Schumer cited Trump’s decision to fire Vindman after he testified in the House impeachment hearing in his letter to the inspectors general. Army Lt. Col Alexander Vindman and his twin were escorted off the White House grounds and dismissed from the National Security Council Friday afternoon. “These attacks are part of a dangerous, growing pattern of retaliation against those who report wrongdoing only to find themselves targeted by the President and subject to his wrath and vindictiveness,” Schumer wrote. thehill.com/homenews/senate/482292-read-schumers-letter-accusing-trump-of-pattern-of-retaliation-against“Because your work and the work of Congress depends on the willingness of insiders to report wrongdoing, you have a critical role in ensuring that any whistleblowers within your agency do not suffer adverse consequences for coming forward and telling the truth.” Schumer also blasted Trump’s “attempts to publicly identify the anonymous whistleblower who used the proper legal channels to initially report the President’s attempts to compromise our national security for his personal benefit.” |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 10, 2020 18:11:07 GMT -6
Which leads us to this: House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Monday sent US Attorney General Bill Barr a letter demanding to know why the DOJ is receiving Biden-Ukraine info from Giuliani ‘outside of the normal channels.’ Via Axios: www.axios.com/bill-barr-justice-department-ukraine-giuliani-bidens-275f0649-925e-4d73-a117-4c588a2c573c.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100“Whether or not you are in league with Mr. Giuliani and his associates, DOJ guidelines and regulations exist to protect you and the Department from even the appearance of a conflict of interest or any impropriety,” Nadler wrote, referring to allegations by Giuliani associate Lev Parnas that Barr was involved in the scheme to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine. “Given your creation of a new “intake process” for Mr. Giuliani, it is all the more important that you provide a complete explanation for your decision to sidestep standard Department practice,” he added. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 10, 2020 18:12:59 GMT -6
amp.dailycaller.com/2020/02/10/dnc-michael-blake-affordable-housingDNC Vice Chair Accused Of Abusing Affordable Housing Program ice chair of the Democratic National Committee is accused of abusing a New York affordable housing program for his own benefit. State Assemblyman Michael Blake, who was tapped for a state task force investigating corruption in one housing program, “has for years taken advantage of a different homeownership program by improperly subletting a government-subsidized condominium intended for moderate-income tenants, in violation of a host of rules and restrictions,” Crain’s New York magazine reported Monday. The magazine noted that state and city housing officials pledged to investigate the issue. Blake, who represents the Bronx in the state legislature, is also a Democratic candidate for New York’s 15th Congressional District. He previously worked in former President Barack Obama’s administration. Blake’s state office did not return the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. (RELATED: DNC Chair Tom Perez Complains That Voters Influenced By Church)
|
|
|
|
Post by redrex on Feb 10, 2020 18:19:38 GMT -6
Biden has lost it -----------He is an idiot
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 10, 2020 20:17:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 11, 2020 13:16:07 GMT -6
Over the weekend Judge Richard Leon in Washington D.C. ordered investigative reporter Matt Couch to release all of his confidential materials to the lawyers for Aaron Rich. Aaron Rich, the brother of Seth Rich is suing Matt Couch for his reporting on Seth who was murdered in the summer of 2016. Seth worked for the DNC at the time. Judge Richard J. Leon, is a longtime colleague and Georgetown Law School co-lecturer with John Podesta. He is also linked to Fusion GPS. www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/2002-01-24-S-Hrg-107-584-Pt-3-Richard-J-Leon-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing-Judiciary-Committee-107th-Congress-pp-142-197-Ser-No-J-107-23-Jan-24-2002.pdfamericans4innovation.blogspot.com/2017/10/hillary-paid-facebook-to-rig-elections.htmlMatt Couch is probably going to file a motion to recuse Leon. Now get this… In a bizarre twist, Aaron Rich and the defendants JOINTLY asked Judge Leon to help arrange the deposition of Julian Assange in England. Julian Assange is the main source who can testify how Wikileaks obtained the Podesta emails during the 2016 election. But in a weird twist, according to our sources, Judge Leon arbitrarily refused the request — even though BOTH PARTIES requested the deposition. This is unheard of! It is unique in a situation where ALL PARTIES agree that they need the testimony of a particular witness, but the judge blocks it WITHOUT EXPLANATION! |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 11, 2020 13:28:55 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/02/11/court-to-investigate-whether-michael-flynns-first-lawyers-did-a-bad-job/Court To Investigate Whether Michael Flynn’s First Lawyers Did A Bad Job Flynn's case, already of significant interest to conservatives, will now likely have the full attention of the D.C. legal profession and ethics experts nationwide. Leslie McAdoo Gordon By Leslie McAdoo Gordon FEBRUARY 11, 2020 Prosecutors in the federal case against Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn over the weekend asked the court to authorize Flynn’s former attorneys to provide information and documents about their representation of Flynn to the government. Flynn has moved to withdraw his guilty plea in federal court on the grounds that his original counsel, the prominent D.C. law firm Covington and Burling, had a conflict of interest and did not provide him with effective assistance of counsel. The prosecutors also asked for more time to respond to Flynn’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea in order to consult with the Covington attorneys. In this case, Flynn initially retained Covington and Burling to help him make disclosures under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) for work through his consulting firm prior to Donald Trump’s inauguration. Later, the government launched a criminal investigation into whether those FARA filings were false and whether Flynn had made false statements about an unrelated telephone call with the Russian ambassador while Trump was the president-elect. Covington represented Flynn in this criminal investigation and his subsequent guilty plea, which almost certainly constituted a conflict of interest, as I’ve previously explained. The prosecutors’ motion seeking access to the Covington attorneys does not expressly signal whether they believe a conflict of interest existed between Flynn and his former counsel or the Covington attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel, although the motion describes in detail Flynn’s statements at his plea hearing admitting guilt. The motion asks the court to give the prosecutors access to the information necessary to evaluate Flynn’s claims. In a late filing Sunday, the defense advised the court that it would consent to the government’s request to delay its filing and asked the court to give the defense time to brief the sensitive issue of access to former counsel, while also noting that the parties could work out the issue between themselves, thus not requiring a ruling from the court. On Monday, Judge Emmett Sullivan granted the prosecutors’ request for additional time, and postponed the scheduled sentencing date until after the ineffective assistance of counsel claim is resolved. He directed the parties to confer to see if they can reach agreement on the ground rules for granting the government access to Flynn’s former attorneys at Covington. Absent agreement, he directed the parties to brief their positions by March 2, 2020, so he can decide the matter. What Happens When Counsel Is ‘Ineffective’ A request from prosecutors for access to former defense counsel is highly unusual except in cases wherein the defendant claims his former counsel was “ineffective.” The constitutional right to counsel includes the principle that the lawyer must be “effective,” meaning he provides representation at a skill level expected of a competent lawyer. Typically, to win a motion claiming the prior lawyer rendered ineffective assistance, a defendant must show both that the lawyer’s representation fell below that standard and that the client was prejudiced by the ineffectiveness. When a criminal defendant claims a prior lawyer provided “ineffective assistance of counsel,” the courts deem that claim to be a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. That means that otherwise-privileged communications between the attorney and client can be disclosed in order to adjudicate the ineffective-assistance claim. But that does not open the door for access to all communications between the defendant and former counsel or to all the information that former counsel obtained during the representation. Under ethical rules, lawyers may only disclose client information relating to the representation under certain exceptions spelled out in the Rule of Professional Conduct. One of those rules says lawyers may disclose client information to defend themselves against claims by clients about the lawyer. But this exception only permits disclosure of information reasonably necessary to resolve the specific ineffective assistance claim the defendant has made. D.C. ethics authorities have cautioned that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not provide carte blanche for defense counsel to disclose anything and everything about the case to prosecutors. How Attorney-Client Privilege Works in the Flynn Case In that regard, the prosecutors’ motion in Flynn’s case is too aggressive. It asks the judge to permit the Covington lawyers to broadly cooperate with the government in addressing the conflict of interest issue. It does not narrow the request to information “reasonably” necessary or limit it to “specific allegations” Flynn raised in his claim of ineffective assistance. Both of those limiting safeguards are reflected in the D.C. ethics opinion on this issue. Flynn’s defense counsel can and presumably will insist on these limitations. The government’s motion also leaves open the possibility that prosecutors could later use information they learn from the Covington lawyers to prosecute Flynn for perjury if he testifies in a hearing on the ineffectiveness of counsel issue, a request Flynn’s counsel should strenuously oppose. These issues were addressed in a way that favors Flynn’s position during a 2017 case named Straker in the D.C. federal court before Judge Bates, a highly respected jurist whose reasoning in that case was very sound. Based on the existing law and ethics rules, Judge Sullivan will probably allow Flynn’s former attorneys at Covington to provide relevant information to the government. He will probably also permit the Covington lawyers to provide information to the government without Flynn or his new counsel being present during those discussions, unless the prosecutors agree to that procedure. Neither of these rulings would force the Covington lawyers to work with the prosecutors. They would simply confirm that it would not be a violation of the attorney-client privilege and legal ethics if they choose to do so. Likely Outcomes Flynn’s lawyers have suggested in their motion to withdraw the plea that the government should agree that the Covington lawyers were ineffective in their representation of Flynn and join the defense’s request to withdraw the guilty plea. Although that would be quite unusual, if the prosecutors were to conclude from their review of the facts with the Covington lawyers that they were laboring under a conflict of interest that prevented effective assistance in the representation, the government could (and should) agree to join the defense request. In that event, the judge would almost certainly grant Flynn’s motion to withdraw his plea. If the defense and prosecution cannot agree, the court will hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve a dispute between Flynn’s counsel and the government about Flynn’s ineffective assistance claim, at which both Covington attorneys and prosecutors are likely to testify. The longtime prosecutor in the case, Brandon Van Grack, did not sign either motion and will be a witness for the government if there is a hearing regarding ineffective counsel. Van Grack was the lead government lawyer during the plea negotiations with Covington, so his firsthand information about the plea discussions will be an important element in resolving the question of whether Flynn received effective counsel. Presumably, he will also be excluded from the discussions between prosecutors and the Covington lawyers, another point Flynn’s defense lawyers should negotiate with the prosecutors or raise with the judge. It has been decades since lawyers in such a high-profile case and at a leading D.C. law firm have been so publicly accused of malpractice or ineffectiveness of counsel. Flynn’s case, already of significant interest to conservatives, will now likely have the full attention of the D.C. legal profession and ethics experts nationwide. Leslie McAdoo Gordon is the principal of McAdoo Gordon & Associates, P.C., founded in 2003. She graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1996, and is licensed to practice law in Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and numerous federal trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to entering the field of law, Leslie McAdoo Gordon served as a Special Agent for the Department of Defense, Defense Investigative Service (now the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency).
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 11, 2020 13:57:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 11, 2020 15:49:25 GMT -6
A second Mueller prosecutor resigned from Roger Stone’s case Tuesday after the DOJ backed down from Stone’s abusive sentencing recommendation OF 7 to 9 years in prison. First Aaron Zelinsky abruptly resigned, then Jonathan Kravis resigned, according to a court filing in Washington federal court. CNBC reported: www.cnbc.com/2020/02/11/trump-ally-roger-stone-will-get-lower-prison-sentence-recommendation.htmlTwo federal prosecutors in the criminal case against Republican operative Roger Stone dramatically quit the case Tuesday shortly after the Department of Justice said it will force prosecutors to cut their recommendation that the longtime ally of President Donald Trump serve as long as nine years in prison. Jonathan Kravis, who delivered the closing argument at Stone’s trial last fall, resigned as an assistant U.S. Attorney, according to a court filing Tuesday in Washington, D.C., federal court. Another prosecutor, Aaron Zelinsky, also withdrew from Stone’s case, and resigned as a special assistant in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C. But Zelinsky will continue serving as a federal prosecutor in Maryland. Kravis and Zelinsky were among the four prosecutors who signed the controversial sentencing recommendation for Stone on Monday night that has come under attack both from the Justice Department and from Trump for being too harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 11, 2020 15:51:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 11, 2020 16:07:46 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/02/11/mueller-prosecutors-may-have-lied-to-doj-about-stone-prison-sentence-recommendation/Mueller Prosecutors May Have Lied To DOJ About Stone Prison Sentence Recommendation A DOJ official told Fox News that the prison sentence demanded by former Mueller prosecutors was "extreme, excessive, and grossly disproportionate." FEBRUARY 11, 2020 By Sean Davis Prosecutors in charge of the federal case against Roger Stone may have lied to the Department of Justice about their lengthy prison sentence recommendation for Stone, according to a new report. Fox News reported earlier today that DOJ was blindsided by the formal recommendation from operatives tapped by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller that Stone be sentenced to up to nine years in prison. A source told Fox that the sentence recommendation was “extreme, excessive, and grossly disproportionate” to Stone’s crimes. “The Department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation in the filing in the Stone case last night,” the DOJ official reportedly told Fox. “The sentencing recommendation was not what had been briefed to the Department.” The report from Fox News suggested that DOJ was in the process of rescinding the rogue prosecutors’ recommendation. Sources told The Federalist that Timothy Shea, who was recently appointed to take over as the top federal prosecutor in D.C. earlier this month, was bullied into agreeing to the sentence recommendation by Adam Jed and Aaron Zelinsky, who were originally tapped by Mueller to investigate whether Donald Trump treasonously colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election from Hillary Clinton. A full investigative report released by Mueller last year revealed that the Mueller investigation found zero evidence for any of the claims of collusion between Trump and the Russians. According to a separate report on serial abuses committed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) during its investigation of Trump, the DOJ inspector general found that the government knew long before Mueller was even appointed that there was no evidence of any collusion. Shea’s acquiescence to the demand by the disgruntled former Mueller operatives raised questions about whether Shea was operationally in control of the D.C. prosecutor’s office, or whether he had effectively outsourced major decisions in high-profile cases to Mueller’s former deputies. Stone, a flamboyant and bombastic 67-year-old political operator who briefly moved within the Trump campaign’s orbit in 2016, was convicted last November of lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction. On Monday, the Mueller prosecutors who tried Stone’s case shocked legal experts by recommending that Stone be imprisoned for seven to nine years for non-violent offenses. In their sentencing memo, Zelinsky and Zed claimed that alleged threats made by Stone against former associate Randy Credico necessitated the lengthy prison sentence. Credico, however, told the court that he never felt threatened by Stone, whom he characterized as “ ll bark and no bite[.]”
“I never in any way felt that Stone himself posed a direct physical threat to me,” Credico said.
Stone’s sentencing recommendation isn’t the first to raise eyebrows. In January, the prosecutors overseeing the case against former White House National Security Adviser Michael Flynn also abruptly changed their sentencing recommendation for him from parole potential time in prison. That sentencing recommendation was filed just one day after former D.C. U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu was nominated by Trump for a position outside DOJ. The name of Brandon Van Grack, the former Mueller prosecutor who wrote that particular sentencing memorandum, was conspicuously missing from the most recent government filings in the Flynn case, raising questions about whether he was still allowed to work on the case. Flynn is currently in the process of trying to withdraw his guilty plea of lying to the FBI.
Shea, Criminal Division Chief Thomas Martin, and a press contact for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in D.C. did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication of this article.
UPDATE: Aaron Zelinsky, the former Mueller operative behind the “grossly disproportionate” sentencing recommendation against Stone, filed notice in federal court on Tuesday afternoon that he was withdrawing from the Stone case and resigning from the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s office effective immediately. Aaron Zed, another disgruntled former Mueller operative, also resigned on Tuesday, as did Jonathan Kravis, an assistant prosecutor in the D.C. office.
DOJ has not announced whether it will seek legal or ethical sanctions against any of the attorneys who allegedly lied to DOJ about their rogue sentencing scheme against Roger Stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Feb 12, 2020 4:33:25 GMT -6
Interesting how this happened after President Trump went off about Stones’ unfair treatment:
Four federal prosecutors dramatically quit the criminal case against Republican operative Roger Stone as the Department of Justice reduced their recommendation that a judge sentence the longtime ally of President Donald Trump to up to nine years in prison.
Jonathan Kravis, who delivered the closing argument at Stone’s trial last fall, resigned as an assistant U.S. Attorney, according to a court filing in Washington federal court.
Kravis, who did not give a reason in the filing, will no longer work as a prosecutor for the federal government.
The other three prosecutors, Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed and Michael Marando, also withdrew from Stone’s case, according to their own separate filings, which did not explain their decision.
But those three all will continue working for the federal government.
|
|
