A federal judge has ruled that former special counsel Robert Mueller had no evidence that the Russian government was behind election year social media trolling. The allegations by Mueller were simply made up. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia revealed a secret legal battle between the Justice Department and the Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting LLC. Because of the conduct of Mueller, the judge began unsealing legal briefs and transcripts, which exposed the fact that Mueller’s 448-page report prompted to seek contempt proceedings.
The argument was that Mueller prejudiced any potential jury by stating that the Kremlin ran the social media campaign, which he argued, without evidence, that the Russian government-funded Concord. That connection isn’t contained in the special counsel’s February 2018 indictment against Concord because there is no evidence to support that public statement.
Representative Jim Jordan discusses his perspective on the last minute addition of Aaron Zebley to protect the collective interests of the DOJ/FBI small group and coup-plotters.
.
It’s worth noting how the DOJ quickly promoted Aaron Zebley to the position of “Deputy Special Counsel” just yesterday to afford: (1) increased justification; and (2) enhanced credibility, for their narrative.
With most DC speculation now placing the timing of the IG report on FISA abuse likely around September or October, this is a both a reminder of sorts and a warning of sorts.
August 31st, 2020, shuts the historic window for any prosecutorial action involving the DC system that circles politics. By custom, the 60-day window surrounding any DC election has historically been considered off-limits to avoid the appearance of election interference. With that in mind we are rapidly approaching a one year countdown at the end of August.
Three months ago U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr asked President Trump to abdicate his declassification authority to the DOJ office. On May 23rd, 2019, President Trump gave AG Bill Barr that authority. A month later, against the backdrop of more evidence surfacing showing corruption within the DOJ and FBI, on June 14th, 2019, twenty three House republicans asked President Trump not to wait for Bill Barr.
Here’s the list of material possible for declassification, and the intelligence offices who hold custodial authority over the compartmented documents. This was the original list as outlined in 2018:
All versions of the Carter Page FISA applications (DOJ) (FBI) (ODNI).
All of the Bruce Ohr 302’s filled out by the FBI. (FBI) (ODNI)
All of Bruce Ohr’s emails (FBI) (DOJ) (CIA) (ODNI). All supportive documents and material provided by Bruce Ohr to the FBI. (FBI)
All relevant documents pertaining to the supportive material within the FISA application. (FBI) (DOJ-NSD ) (DoS) (CIA) (DNI) (NSA) (ODNI);
All intelligence documents that were presented to the Gang of Eight in 2016 that pertain to the FISA application used against U.S. person Carter Page; including all intelligence documents that may not have been presented to the FISA Court. (CIA) (FBI) (DOJ) (ODNI) (DoS) (NSA) Presumably this would include the recently revealed State Dept Kavalac email; and the FBI transcripts from wiretaps of George Papadopoulos (also listed in Carter Page FISA). [AKA ‘Bucket Five’]
All unredacted text messages and email content between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok on all devices. (FBI) (DOJ) (DOJ-NSD) (ODNI)
The originating CIA “EC” or two-page electronic communication from former CIA Director John Brennan to FBI Director James Comey that started Operation Crossfire Hurricane in July 2016. (CIA) (FBI) (ODNI)
Additionally, since the 2018 list was developed, more information has surfaced about underlying material. This added to the possibility of documents for declassification:
♦ President Trump can prove the July 31st, 2016, Crossfire Hurricane counterintelligence operation originated from a scheme within the intelligence apparatus by exposing the preceding CIA operation that created the originating “Electronic Communication” memo. Declassify that two-page “EC” document that Brennan gave to Comey. [The trail is found within the Weissmann report and the use of Alexander Downer – SEE HERE]
♦ Release and declassify all of the Comey memos that document the investigative steps taken by the FBI as an outcome of the operation coordinated by CIA Director John Brennan in early 2016. [The trail was memorialized by James Comey – SEE HERE]
♦ Reveal the November 2015 through April 2016 FISA-702 search query abuse by declassifying the April 2017 court opinion written by FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer. Show the FBI contractors behind the 85% fraudulent search queries. [Crowdstrike? Fusion-GPS? Nellie Ohr? Daniel Richman?] This was a weaponized surveillance and domestic political spying operation. [The trail was laid down in specific detail by Judge Collyer – SEE HERE]
♦ Subpoena former DOJ-NSD (National Security Division) head John Carlin, or haul him in front of a grand jury, and get his testimony about why he hid the abuse from the FISA court in October 2016; why the DOJ-NSD rushed the Carter Page application to beat NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers to the FISA court; and why Carlin quit immediately thereafter.
♦ Prove the Carter Page FISA application (October 2016) was fraudulent and based on deceptions to the FISA Court. Declassify the entire document, and release the transcripts of those who signed the application(s); and/or depose those who have not yet testified. The creation of the Steele Dossier was the cover-up operation. [SEE HERE]
♦ Release all of the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text messageswithout redactions. Let sunlight pour in on the actual conversation(s) that were taking place when Crossfire Hurricane (July ’16) and the FISA Application (Oct ’16) were taking place. The current redactions were made by the people who weaponized the intelligence system for political surveillance and spy operation. This is why Page and Strzok texts are redacted!
♦ Release all of Bruce Ohr 302’s, FBI notes from interviews and debriefing sessions, and other relevant documents associated with the interviews of Bruce Ohr and his internal communications. Including exculpatory evidence that Bruce Ohr may have shared with FBI Agent Joseph Pientka. [And get a deposition from this Pientka fella] Bruce Ohr is the courier, carrying information from those outside to those on the inside.
♦ Release the August 2nd, 2017, two-page scope memo provided by DAG Rod Rosenstein to special counsel Robert Mueller to advance the fraudulent Trump investigation, and initiate the more purposeful obstruction of justice investigation. Also Release the October 20th, 2017, second scope memo recently discovered. The Scope Memos are keys to unlocking the underlying spy/surveillance cover-up. [SEE HERE and SEE HERE]
John Solomon has an interesting report at The Hill documenting the special counsel attempting to leverage a Russian oligarch to deliver false testimony for their fabricated case against Donald Trump. What Solomon outlines is gross prosecutor misconduct.
The basic elements of the construct are described in the first two minutes of this radio interview video. WATCH/LISTEN:
Paul Sperry has an interesting article today citing anonymous sources in/around the Inspector General Michael Horowitz investigation. Much of the information within the report is confirmation of prior research. However, the citations of FBI James Comey implanting an FBI operative into the White House is very specific:
Real Clear Investigations – At the same time Comey was personally scrutinizing the president during meetings in the White House and phone conversations from the FBI, he had an agent inside the White House working on the Russia investigation, where he reported back to FBI headquarters about Trump and his aides, according to officials familiar with the matter.
The agent, Anthony Ferrante, who specialized in cyber crime, left the White House around the same time Comey was fired and soon joined a security consulting firm, where he contracted with BuzzFeed to lead the news site’s efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection with a defamation lawsuit.
Knowledgeable sources inside the Trump White House say Comey carved out an extraordinary new position for Ferrante, which allowed him to remain on reserve status at the FBI while working in the White House as a cybersecurity adviser. (keep reading)
Part of this is predictable (the overall scheme), and part of this is directly connected to the outrage trap (the justification). Lots of people fall into the outrage trap.
If the DOJ and the FBI genuinely believed Donald Trump was a hostile agent of a foreign government, their proclaimed justification for their ‘by the book‘ endeavors; and if the DOJ/FBI actually had reasonable evidence to support that investigative position; then everything FBI Director James Comey is now accused of doing would be justified.
The key words are “reasonable” and “justifiable”.
As we have discussed before,… generating public outrage over the investigative outcomes is a favored chaff-and-countermeasure approach by DC politicians and swamp protectors. See Benghazi, Fast-n-Furious, IRS targeting, etc.
You’ll note the origination stories/motives behind each aforementioned corrupt activities remained out of the public discussion, while all outrage was focused on the ‘outcome’.
In 2013 everyone wanted to talk about the Benghazi compound attack, but no-one wanted to ask about why the State Department and CIA were there in the first place.
In 2014 everyone was willing to talk about the IRS refusing tax-exempt status for conservative political groups, but no-one wanted to talk about why the DOJ originally requested CD-ROM’s from the IRS “Schedule-B’s”. etc.
In 2019 the FBI and DOJ would love to talk about planting bugs in the Trump White House; putting FBI assets in/around the Trump oval office; and being forced to lie to President-elect Trump etc, because all of that type of activity only highlights the FBI’s diligence and magnanimity given the risk of having a Russian agent as President of The United States.
That’s their justification position, and it makes for splendidly good DC media coverage and pundit pearl clutching. Oh those poor souls in the DOJ/FBI trying earnestly to protect our country…. well, you know the routine.
What they don’t want to discuss is the origin…. or the evidence to support their predicate position(s). That’s where the weaponization of the intelligence apparatus is located.
That origination aspect is what the DOJ and FBI do not want to talk about.
As a result, when it comes to the James Comey aspect, we need to start by demanding the declassification of the Comey memos; and the release of the Archey declarations that describe the Comey memos.
Mueller’s lead FBI agent David Archey wrote a series of declarations to the DC court describing the content of the memos and arguing why they should be kept classified.
On July 5th (around 3 weeks ago) the U.S. Department of Justice -under Attorney General Bill Barr- while waiting until the last minute (28 days since prior ruling), filed a motion [full pdf below] to block the release of the Archey Declarations, despite a June 7th court order demanding their release.
Again, if transparency in conduct of the DOJ and FBI during 2016 is the expressed goal of Attorney General Bill Barr, then his current department fighting to keep descriptions of FBI memorandum hidden from public review runs exactly counter to that intent.
This DOJ activity does not bode well for a narrative of Bill Barr is an honest broker. This is an example of how to cover-up material that is damaging to the institution.
To be fair, Attorney General Bill Barr may not be aware the United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, is fighting this court ordered release.
However, the DOJ Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division is Jody Hunt. That name might be familiar to you because Jody Hunt was Jeff Sessions former chief-of-staff.
Asst. AG Jody Hunt most certainly knows his office is fighting to keep the FBI descriptions of the Comey memos hidden from the public. Despite the original FOIA lawsuit coming from CNN -vs- DOJ, there is no-one covering this story. Here is the July 5th DOJ filing.
Here’s the background on the June 7th, 2019, ruling as we shared at the time:
Judge Boasberg was deciding what could be publicly released, meaning current redactions removed, based on two connected events: (#1) The content of the Comey Memos; and (#2) the declarations of lead FBI agent for Robert Mueller’s special counsel, David Archey, in describing those memos. CNN had filed a lawsuit to gain full access.
[Note: the descriptions of the Comey memos by FBI agent David Archey are known as the “Archey Declarations” – Read Here.]
For those who may not be aware, there are so many memos (dozens) when assembled they seem to make up an actual diary of moment-by-moment events, during the FBI investigation of Donald Trump, as documented by FBI Director James Comey.
♦ In the issue of the redactions within the Comey Memos, the judge doesn’t remove them. Some are ordered to be removed, some are approved to stay in place. The Comey memo aspect, and the redaction decision, is basically a splitting of the baby 50/50. It will be interesting, but meh, maybe not too much detail. – CNN ARTICLE
The issues argued by the FBI lawyers to keep the Comey memos hidden surround sources and methods. The judge generally agreed to the potential for compromise, but also outlined several sections of redactions within the Comey memos where that argument doesn’t hold up. [The judge has read the fully unredacted memo content.]
♦ However, on the issue of the Archey Declarations there’s an opportunity for some very interesting information to surface. Here’s an example of currently existing redactionswithin the Archey Declarations:
And stunningly, yes, STUNNINGLY, Judge Boasberg has ordered the Archey declarations to be fully released to the public WITHOUT REDACTIONS. See pages 34 and 35 of the ruling.
That means all those black boxes in the example above would have been removed and CNN would have been allowed to see the fully unredacted content of the declarations by FBI Agent David Archey.
That was until the DOJ stepped in on July 9th and requested to have the June 7th, ruling modified/changed.
Rep. Doug Collins appears on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the upcoming testimony of Robert Mueller and the status of multiple inquires into the DOJ and FBI activity in 2016.
On the Horowitz report, remember to ignore all claims of upcoming release until we hear of the ‘Principal Notification’ for the final draft. We’ll know when the IG submits the draft review to principals because while they are bound by non-disclosure over content, they will be advocating their defense positions in the media on their overall interests.
A lawsuit filed a week ago by Businessman Ed Butowsky, alleged that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner the DNC leaked emails were received from Seth Rich and his brother Aaron. [Full Backstory Here]
Due to the scale of ramification, there was some valid skepticism about the Butowsky assertion. However, recently unearthed footage from Ellen Ratner talking about her visit with Assange in November of 2016 seems to validate what the Butowsky’s lawsuit alleges.
In the video [Full Video Here] taken during a November 9th, 2016, Embry Riddle University symposium, Fox News analyst Ellen Ratner, representing the left, and former Congressman now Fox political analyst John Leboutillier, from the right, discussed the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. WATCH EXCERPT:
[h/t Michael Sheridan for the excerpt] The date of the Ratner symposium November 9, 2016, aligns with the time-frame of Ratner’s travel and meeting with Assange as outlined by Butowsky in his lawsuit. As noted Mrs. Ratner confirms that she did meet with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and that he did in fact tell her the leaked DNC emails came from inside the DNC. It was not a Russian hack.
Hopefully this will spur the DOJ under Attorney General Bill Barr to launch an inquiry which must obviously start with the questioning of Ratner.
Accepting some enhanced credibility now exists, the details contained within the lawsuit filing (full pdf below) are stunning.
If this information is true and accurate, now bolstered by the video of Ratner, the DOJ claim of a Russian hack –based on assertions by DNC contractor, Crowdstrike– would be entirely false. Additionally the DC murder of Seth Rich would hold a far more alarming motive.
The ramifications here are almost too large to describe.
If this information turns out to be true and accurate, the entire narrative around the DNC “hack” will have been proven to be intentionally manufactured.
Despite the FBI’s prior admissions about never reviewing the DNC servers; and despite their recent admissions about never actually seeing the forensic computer analysis, the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann and former DAG Rod Rosenstein, cannot blame a simple investigative ‘mistake‘ for the wrong attribution of who gave the DNC emails to Wikileaks.
The FBI, the DOJ and the Mueller special counsel have each purposefully claimed specific Russian actors were responsible for hacking the DNC in 2016. If it turns out those claims were based on falsehood, the integrity of the DOJ and Special Counsel collapses.
Mr. Butowsky is making a very serious allegation in this court filing.
Additionally, the previously discussed motive to arrest Julian Assange would now be further enhanced. Heck, the reason for Assange’ arrest would be brutally obvious.
♦Dana Boente was head of DOJ-NSD from May 11th, 2017 through end of October 2017 when he officially announced his intent to retire. However, the timeline gets cloudy here because Boente said he was staying on until an official replacement was announced. There’s no indication of when Boente actually left the DOJ-NSD or the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) role.
On January 23rd, 2018, FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Dana Boente had shifted over to the FBI to be Chief Legal Counsel (replacing James Baker) where Boente remains today. As Mueller was using 19 lawyers, and 50 FBI investigators, Boente was/is the legal counsel to FBI Director Christopher Wray while the Mueller probe was ongoing.
[Remember, Robert Mueller never interviewed Julian Assange. Additionally, it is worth noting for the U.S. side of the legal framework, the charges against Assange are not related to Russian efforts in a hack of the DNC; nor is Assange charged with anything related to the 2016 U.S. election interference activities, the Podesta email release or anything therein as previously described by the DOJ.]
The April 11th, 2019, Julian Assange indictment stemmed from the Eastern District of Virginia. From a review of the indictment we discover it was under seal since March 6th, 2018: (The DOJ sat on the indictment for 13 months, until Mueller finished)
However, on Tuesday April 15th, 2019, more investigative material was released. Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, *December of 2017* This means FBI investigation prior to December ’17..
The investigation of Assange took place prior to December 2017, it is coming from the EDVA where Dana Boente was still, presumably, U.S. Attorney. The grand jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until April of 2019.
Why was there a delay?
Why did the DOJ wait until the Mueller report was complete?
Here’s where it gets interesting….
The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman Dana Rohrabacher talked to Assange in August of 2017: “Assange told a U.S. congressman … he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents … did not come from Russia.”
(August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year’s election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill.
“Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year’s presidential election,” Rohrabacher said, “Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails.”
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. (read more)
If you overlay the timing, it would appear the FBI took a keen interest in Assange after this August 2017 meeting and gathered specific evidence for a grand jury by December 2017. Then the DOJ sat on the indictment (sealed in March 2018) while the Mueller probe was ongoing; until April 11th, 2019, when a coordinated effort between the U.K. and U.S. was launched. Assange was arrested, and the indictment was unsealed (link).
To me, as a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016 Russian hacking/interference narrative: “17 intelligence agencies”, JAR report(needed for Obama – December 29th, ’16), and political ICA (January ’17); this looked like a Deep State move to control Julian Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes…. AND that narrative is contingent on the Russia DNC hack story.
The Weissmann/Mueller/Rosenstein report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview.
Right there is the FBI motive to shut Assange down when the Mueller report was released.
The DNC hack claim is contingent upon analysis by Crowdstrike computer forensics who were paid by the DNC to look into the issue. The FBI was never allowed to review the servers independently, and now we know the FBI never even looked at a full forensics report from Crowdstrike.
Almost all independent research into this DNC hack narrative challenges the claims of a Russia hack of the DNC servers; and now this bombshell court filing, again if accurate, makes the DOJ claim completely collapse.
Lastly, if we are to believe everything that is factually visible; including the admissions by the FBI and DOJ itself; and it is proven that Seth Rich was indeed the source of the DNC emails and there was no hack; well,… what does that say about Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein, who would have had to know they were pushing abject lies in their dubious Russian indictments.
The status of the Eastern District of Virginia case against former partner of Michael Flynn, Bijan Rafiekian is bizarre.
Apparently U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr has not engaged into this case, and the current status is a mess.
The head-scratching FARA case was tenuous from the outset as the prosecution was arguing a rather odd legal interpretation of FARA statutes; and now the DOJ could be handed a dismissal, even if the jury returns a guilty verdict.
Yes, when you stretch legal interpretation beyond evidence, it’s a mess.
The current arguments surround jury instructions where the DOJ is requesting their earlier claims of Rafiekian as an “agent of a foreign government” be dropped (because there is no evidence); and simultaneously arguing that Rafiekian didn’t have to break the law surrounding FARA in order to be found guilty of breaking the DOJ interpretation of the law surrounding FARA. Confused? You should be. The judge is too:…
Despite an earlier filing, the DOJ prosecutor never did call Michael Flynn Jr as a witness, nor Michael Flynn himself. Additionally, after the prosecution finished their presentation, the defense informed Judge Anthony Trenga (in oral arguments) they also have no intention of calling Michael Flynn.
While the case is ongoing, in oral arguments about how to instruct the jury, the entire sketchy construct is being debated by the judge, prosecution and defense. Like I said, it’s a hot mess; and unfortunately while I have read the oral argument transcript, I can’t share the information (it’s embargoed).
Suffice to say the DOJ is arguing the Flynn Intel Group (FIG) is guilty of doing something even though the DOJ can’t prove the FIG intended to do something unlawful.
The argument around “mens rea” is intent. “Mens rea” is the mental element of a person’s intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one’s action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.
In oral arguments (about jury instructions) the DOJ says they don’t need to prove the Flynn Intel Group was guilty of intent.
Indeed, the DOJ position is that Rafiekian did something wrong, without intending to do something wrong, in filing information about their Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) compliance forms.
The DOJ also admits the government took no action as an outcome of the accidentally wrong information; simply that the information itself was accidentally false – and therefore unlawful.
So the judge (“The Court”) is asking questions:
The government’s position is is tenable at best.
Here’s how Techno Fog sees it:
The DOJ’s position on Section 951(d)(4) is that the “legal commercial transaction” exception does not include (1) illegal activities; and (2) activities that are prohibited but technically not illegal.
Under this theory there is potential 951 criminal culpability for a minor FARA violation, such as late registration or the omission of facts.
Now consider the 2016 OIG report on the NSD’s enforcement of FARA, and how many lobbyists would have been exposed to Section 951 due to their sloppy registrations. (For example, 57% of the new registered agent contracts reviewed by OIG were not registered timely.)
My biggest takeaway is the DOJ’s position that the conduct need only be “prohibited.”
I’m assuming this is consistent with how they’ve applied Section 951 in the past. (If the 951/FARA/FISA theory is correct.) That would have included all the lobbyists doing work on behalf of foreign countries, foreign individuals, or foreign corporations who didn’t have airtight FARA paperwork. Not just the material omissions/lies alleged in the Rafiekian case.
The DOJ prosecutor basically admits this: “any conduct that was in violation of the FARA statute, whether or not prosecuted or prosecutable, renders that conduct not a legal commercial transaction.” [Key point being “whether or not… prosecutable”]
In my opinion the government’s DOJ-NSD position is specific and purposeful because they are trying to avoid later scrutiny about their use of FARA violations to gain FISA surveillance warrants.
That is to say…. the DOJ National Security Division, intentionally never prosecuted for FARA violations because they used the appearance of FARA violations to get FISA electronic surveillance warrants against any DC entity they wanted to watch. To get a FISA they have to assert evidence of “working as an agent of a foreign power.”
The Obama-era DOJ, applying the Lawfare ideology, used any/all technical FARA violations as the predicate to make claims to the FISA court. This allowed them to get surveillance authority over any target they identified. This is how the Obama DOJ and FBI assembled the files on their political opponents. This prior activity is what the collective “small group”, with the assistance of the Lawfare team, are now trying to justify.
In the event that any internal investigation calls their activity into question, the DOJ is positioning their justification strategy within this Rafiekian case. Does that make sense?
Now…. You might remember the promoted Special Counsel announcement that started the case against Flynn’s former Flynn Intel Group (FIG) partner Bijan Rafiekian, see below:
Well, on Friday, the day after the prosecution finished delivering all their evidence, the prosecution began arguing to remove that predicate claim.
The DOJ no longer wants any language in the jury instructions that mentions being an “agent of the government of Turkey”?
The reason the DOJ wants to strike the “agent of a foreign power” language is because they presented no evidence to prove it. Nor did the DOJ present any evidence to prove a conspiracy.
Nothing.
Zippo.
Zilch.
The prosecution is left arguing that any foreign engagement by the Flynn Intel Group, specifically Bijan Rafiekian, would constitute a FARA violation under their interpretation of law.
….”any conduct that was in violation of the FARA statute, whether or not prosecuted or prosecutable, renders that conduct not a legal commercial transaction.”
The action need not be prosecutable in order to define that action as not legal. Rafiekian didn’t have to break the law surrounding FARA in order to be found guilty of breaking the DOJ interpretation of the law surrounding FARA 951 statute.
Techno Fog@Techno_Fog
·
We have the transcript from the US v Rafiekian (Flynn Intel Group/FARA case) hearing on jury instructions.
What does the DOJ say about instructing the jury on a FARA violation?
“We really haven’t figured out the best way to go about doing that.”
Techno Fog@Techno_Fog
Counsel for Defendant Rafiekian makes an excellent point in response:
“If the gov’t can’t articulate [the illegal commercial transaction] now, how is the defendant supposed to figure that out on his own back in 2016?”
House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler and his staff (two hired from Lawfare) have been coordinating with the aligned DOJ/FBI special counsel group for several months for the upcoming appearance of Robert Mueller on Wednesday of this upcoming week.
The objective of the group’s coordinated plan has been to present a hearing that supports the original goal of the ‘small group’ effort, impeachment. Toward that goal Mueller has been working closely with Nadler’s staff who are coordinating Mueller’s appearance.
In this interview Nadler outlines the objective of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and himself to frame the Mueller testimony. However, it also appears that Nadler is generally blind to the amount of information in the public sphere which highlights the known illicit motives and foundation of the Weissmann and Mueller team.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
A federal judge has ruled that former special counsel Robert Mueller had no evidence that the Russian government was behind election year social media trolling. The allegations by Mueller were simply made up. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia revealed a secret legal battle between the Justice Department and the Russian firm Concord Management and Consulting LLC. Because of the conduct of Mueller, the judge began unsealing legal briefs and transcripts, which exposed the fact that Mueller’s 448-page report prompted to seek contempt proceedings.
Centinel2012 