Judge orders Robert Mueller to turn over documents related to Michael Flynn’s questioning
As Michael Flynn awaits sentencing for his guilty plea on one count of lying to the FBI the case is now taking an interesting turn. Michael Flynn is making the claim that he did not have a lawyer present during questioning because he was told by Andrew McCabe he did not need one. Because of this the Federal judge overseeing the case is demanding Robert Mueller turn over all documents related to the case, and that includes documents with potentially exculpatory evidence.
Here is more:
The federal judge overseeing former national security advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s criminal case is demanding that Special Counsel Robert Mueller turn over all of the government’s documents related to Flynn’s questioning by 3:00 p.m. EST Friday. The documents requested by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan include potentially exculpatory “memoranda” pertaining to Flynn’s case.
This comes after a sentencing memo filed by Flynn’s defense team on Tuesday showed that Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe suggested that then-national security adviser Flynn not have a lawyer present for his interview with two bureau agents at the White House on Jan. 24, 2017. That interview with FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka ultimately led to Flynn’s guilty plea on one count of making false statements regarding wiretapped communications with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn “clearly saw the FBI agents as allies” and was “relaxed and jocular,” according to the 302 prepared by the agents. Now, many believe the agents were sent there to catch him in a perjury trap.
You could argue that Michael Flynn should have been smart enough to understand he needed to have a lawyer present and I would agree with you, however that does not excuse the FBI from the fact the agency violated Michael Flynn’s rights and as such I believe the guilty plea should be overturned. And apparently that could happen:
The bombshell allegation seems to have piqued the interest of Sullivan, a magistrate known for having a low tolerance level for the shenanigans of federal prosecutors.
Sullivan — who overturned the 2008 conviction of former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens after government misconduct came to light — is weighing how to sentence Flynn, who pleaded guilty to one count of lying to federal authorities during the 2017 interview in the West Wing. Flynn faced mounting legal bills that forced him to sell his home amid the prosecution, and Mueller has already recommended he receive no prison time.
Flynn is set to be sentenced next Tuesday — but Sullivan’s move might delay that date, or lead to other dramatic and unexpected changes in the case. Sullivan even has the authority to toss Flynn’s guilty plea and the charge against him if he concludes that the FBI interfered with Flynn’s constitutional right to counsel, although he has given no indications that he intends to do so.
Last week we learned that Robert Mueller hid exculpatory evidence for Donald Trump and now we are leaning they violated Michael Flynn’s right and also possibly withheld exculpatory evidence and we are still supposed to believe this is not a witch hunt?
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Democratic Congressman Lieu: ‘I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech’
There is an old definition in politics which goes something like this: a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth. Today California Representative Ted Lieu had a bit of a gaffe of his own when he basically admitted that he would love to be able to regulate free speech if it was not for that little piece of paper we call the Constitution. Here is more:
I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment
He does go on to say that over the long run it is probably a bad idea for the government to regulate free speech but sorry Teddy boy, you let the cat out of the bag. The truth is that many Democrats feel the same way and in fact over the years they have been stealthily successful at regulating free speech. They just call it being politically correct…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Donald Trump threatens to use the military to build the wall if the Congress doesn’t approve funding
From browsing the internet after work tonight it would appear to me as if the media considers the big news of the day the notion that the Democrats “tricked” Donald Trump into admitting it would be his fault if there is a government shutdown over border wall funding.
To me that is not really news at all because the President has said time and time again that he is willing to shut the government down if he does not get the funding for his wall. Of course he has made this threat before and backed down so whether or not he actually follows through this time is another story. But this time he might have a “Plan B” if he decides it is political suicide to shut down the government; the President today said if he cannot get funding approved through the Congress he would have the military build the wall using funding which is already appropriated.
Here is what he tweeted earlier today:
The President has made this threat once before and has not followed up on it so we will have to wait and see if he is serious this time or if he is just trying to leverage military funding to try to get the Congress to move on this.
Personally I believe he is fed up with trying to deal with getting border funding and is serious about using the military and it is going to be interesting to see what happens if he does it. You know as well as I do that somebody will sue challenging the Commander-in-Chief’s authority to direct the military and judging my the past they will find a judge to stop him.
Of course this means that Mexico still will not be paying for the wall but I think most people understand that statement was made in the heat of the moment and never really had a chance of coming to fruition, but that will not stop the liberals from having fun with what they will call another “lie.”
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Is Donald Trump facing impeachment and indictment for illegal campaign contributions?
This might be the understatement of the year but Friday was not a good day for the President despite the spin his supporters tried to put on it. On Friday it was revealed that Donald Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, admitted that candidate Trump directed hush money payments to be made to a couple of his alleged mistresses.
Democrats (who did not care when Barack Obama was fined for violating campaign finance laws to the tune of nearly $2 million but watched gleefully as Dinesh D’Souza admitted to violating laws and was sent to jail) were quick to pounce on this news, claiming the President could be both indicted or impeached.
Here is more:
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday said that President Trump might “face the real prospect of jail time” after prosecutors indicated last week that he directed illegal payments during his 2016 presidential campaign.
“There’s a very real prospect that on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him. That he may be the first president in quite some time to face the real prospect of jail time,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Schiff’s comments come after federal prosecutors said in a legal filing Friday that referred to Trump as “Individual-1” that Trump during the 2016 campaign directed his former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, to make illegal payments to two women claiming they had affairs with Trump. It was the first time prosecutors made those accusations against Trump.
Meanwhile, other Democrats were looking a little less into the future and were talking about impeachment, here is more on that:
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that it would “certainly” be an impeachable offense if it’s proven that President Trump directed illegal payments during his campaign.
“They would be impeachable offenses. Whether they are important enough to justify an impeachment is a different question, but certainly they’d be impeachable offenses because even though they were committed before the president became president, they were committed in the service of fraudulently obtaining the office,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Representative Nadler said it would have to be determined if this impeachable offence is worthy of pursuing impeachment. That seems like an odd statement to make if he truly believes this would be an impeachable offense after the Democrats have been threatening impeachment over much less. I also do not believe the Democrats would wait for proof before moving on impeachment, we have seen that in today’s America a person is guilty until proven innocent and there is no reason to think it will be different in this case.
If I had to bet I would say the House of Representatives is going to impeach the President, however I see no way the Republican controlled Senate will vote to remove him from office so that means the Democrats will have to wait until he is out of office and then hope “justice” is served with an indictment and conviction. And with this being the news New York has been waiting for I expect the liberal state to move on it as soon as possible.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, December 9th open thread: ‘Sail Away’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is the open thread for Sunday, December 9th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is David Gray performing “Sail Away” live in Luzern:
One of the charges the left loves to throw around about Donald Trump is that he is an authoritarian-in-waiting. Mostly these charges revolve around the mainstream media with the claim he is eventually going to throw them in jail for disagreeing with him, but we have heard he was going to do the same with leftist politicians as well. (The irony of the left making this claim while at the same time trying to criminalize his entire Presidency and those on the right who disagree with their agenda is not lost on many of us.)
With that in mind I am wondering how these same people feel about their new icon, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the possibility she is in criminal violation of threatening a private citizen with Congressional retribution.
In case you have not heard the story: The other day Donald Trump Jr shared a meme that has been going around on the internet which showed the new Representative from New York asking why people were afraid of socialism, with Donald Trump answering because Americans want to walk their dogs not eat them. (Personally I think the President’s family should lay off the trolling but that is neither her nor there for the sake of this post.)
The thin-skinned Ocasio-Cortez, who has no problem attacking the right, took offense to this and decided it was a “large brain” idea to hit back at Donald Trump Jr by threatening to use Congress’ subpoena power against him if he kept on attacking her. Here is what she tweeted in response:
After hearing complaints about this she took to Twitter again and claimed this was not a threat because she individually does not have subpoena power and she implied those who believe she can act on this must be stupid. However, where did she come up with the idea of subpoenaing a person with whom she disagrees? It is obvious to me this is the game plan of the left and this is what has been talked about in private. This was obviously a threat and she intended to try to persuade the Congress to subpoena Donald Trump Jr if he did not leave her alone. And it appears as if this could indeed be a criminal act:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)
Here is what the Democrats are saying about this:
That’s right, they are silent. What a shock! I guess we are going to have to wait to see if any ethics charges are brought against Ocasio-Cortez but I doubt it. Actually it might be a better plan to let this go so she keeps on talking…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Judge reopens part of Hillary Clinton email investigation
It looks like we have not heard the last of the Hillary Clinton email scandal just yet because according to this story a judge has ordered the State Department and the Justice Department to reopen part of the investigation. Here is more:
a federal judge ordered additional fact-finding into whether Clinton’s use of the private email system was a deliberate effort to thwart the Freedom of Information Act.
In a scathing opinion issued Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth said that despite FBI, inspector general and congressional investigations into Clinton’s use of a private account for all her email traffic during her four years as secretary of state, the conservative group Judicial Watch should be permitted to demand documents and additional testimony about the practice.
He blasted Clinton’s email practices as “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”
At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA and hoodwink this court.”
Lamberth wrote he took no pleasure in “questioning the intentions of the nation’s most august” Cabinet departments, but said it was necessary when their response “smacks of outrageous misconduct.”
The judge also went on to say the Trump administration (read Jeff Sessions here) did not do anything about it and actually made it worse:
Lamberth added that despite President Donald Trump’s repeated campaign attacks against Clinton for not making her emails public, “the current Justice Department made things worse,” by taking the position that agencies are not obliged to search for records not in the government’s possession when a FOIA request is made.
I could not agree more with Judge Lamberth about everything he wrote, and that includes Jeff Sessions, but unfortunately I am not sure much is going to change because we are learning that Donald Trump with his new choice to head the Justice Department has decided to dive into the swamp instead of draining it.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Did Robert Mueller withhold exculpatory evidence?
Yesterday we learned that Jerome Corsi has filed an ethics and criminal complaint against Robert Mueller for allegedly trying to threaten and intimidate him into making false statements under oath and today we are learning, in this story, that Robert Mueller is being accused of withholding exculpatory evidence for Donald Trump.
Here is more:
The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president.
The article continues:
On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox. Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.
But wait, there’s more:
Page 2 of the same criminal information document holds additional exculpatory evidence for Trump, sources say. It quotes an August 2017 letter from Cohen to the Senate intelligence committee in which he states that Trump “was never in contact with anyone about this [Moscow Project] proposal other than me.” This section of Cohen’s written testimony, unlike other parts, is not disputed as false by Mueller, which sources say means prosecutors have tested its veracity through corroborating sources and found it to be accurate.
Also notable, Mueller did not challenge Cohen’s statement that he “ultimately determined that the proposal was not feasible and never agreed to make a trip to Russia.”
“Though Cohen may have lied to Congress about the dates,” one Hill investigator said, “it’s clear from personal messages he sent in 2015 and 2016 that the Trump Organization did not have formal lines of communication set up with Putin’s office or the Kremlin during the campaign. There was no secret ‘back channel.’”
“So as far as collusion goes,” the source added, “the project is actually more exculpatory than incriminating for Trump and his campaign.”
As bad as yesterday’s news was for the integrity of the investigation this news might be even worse. If these two stories are true it shows us that Robert Mueller had come to a conclusion before the investigation and is now trying to manipulate the evidence by creating the evidence it needs while hiding the evidence that does not support the predetermined outcome.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Jerome Corsi files ethics complaint against Robert Mueller
Last week it had been reported that Jerome Corsi had reached a plea deal with Robert Mueller admitting he lied to the investigation and would now cooperate with the investigation. It was reported that this was bad news for Roger Stone and for the President because he was going to spill the beans.
However it is now being reported here that Jerome Corsi has filed an ethics complaint against Robert Mueller and the investigative team because he claims he was threatened and intimidated to providing false information. Here is more:
Attorneys representing Jerome Corsi filed an ethics complaint Monday accusing prosecutors in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office of pressuring their client to provide “false testimony” against Republican operative Roger Stone and President Trump.
“Dr. Corsi has been threatened with immediate indictment by Mueller’s prosecutorial staff unless he testifies falsely against Roger Stone and/or President Donald Trump and his presidential campaign, among other false testimony,” Corsi’s lawyers, Larry Klayman and David Gray, said in a complaint submitted to acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker.
Prosecutors working on behalf of special counsel Robert Mueller offered Corsi a plea deal that would require him to admit to making false statements about his communications with Stone, but Corsi says he rejected the deal because he does not believe he knowingly misled prosecutors.
This is certainly an interesting and unexpected twist to this ongoing saga and now it is on to the Justice Department where under Jeff Sessions complaints like this went to die. Hopefully it will be different with Jeff Sessions gone and Matt Whitaker in charge.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, December 2nd open thread: ‘Natural’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is the open thread for Sunday, December 2nd. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Imagine Dragons performing “Natural” live from earlier this year, enjoy:
America's Watchtower 