Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Top Mueller Attorney Attended Hillary’s Election Night Party

Top Mueller Attorney Attended Hillary’s Election Night Party

This does not look good

One of the top attorneys working with special counsel Mueller in the Russia investigation attended Hillary’s election night party, reports the WSJ.

Buried in the report (emphasis mine):

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, Republicans focused on Mr. Strzok and Mr. Weissmann, who sent an email to former acting attorney general Sally Yates the night she was fired applauding her decision to instruct Justice Department lawyers not to defend Mr. Trump’s initial travel ban.

“I am so proud,” Mr. Weissmann wrote in the subject line of an email, which was released by the conservative group Judicial Watch. Mr. Weissmann also attended Hillary Clinton’s election-night party at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York, according to people familiar with his attendance.

At the time, Mr. Weissmann was running the Justice Department’s fraud section, which is a senior career post within the agency. In his current role, Mr. Weissmann has been leading the case against Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman, and Rick Gates, a campaign aide. Both men have been indicted on lobbying and financial crimes, charges they deny and which aren’t related to the Trump campaign.

According to the WSJ, “Federal law prohibits the Justice Department—which includes the special counsel’s office—from using political or ideological affiliations to assess applicants for career positions in the agency. Employees are also allowed to express opinions on political subjects privately and publicly, as long as they aren’t in concert with a political party or candidate for office.”

That’s not to say one can’t be objective beyond their political ideology, but it certainly taints the argument that Mueller’s Russian investigation remains focused and apolitical.

Earlier this week, Professor Jacobson outlined the litany of oddities in the Mueller investigation (a must read) and concluded:

The entire purported reason for a Special Counsel – to have someone truly independent conducting the investigation of Russian interference in the election and possible election collusion.

Instead, we have an investigation that appears to be looking for any pretext to take down Trump.

It smells like the revenge of James Comey by his close friend Robert Mueller, and his team of Trump haters.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


G. de La Hoya | December 8, 2017 at 1:37 pm

Must have been one helluva party! 🙂

The wake that “woke” the un-deplorables.

But Rod Rosenstein gives a DC TV station an interview saying he’s satisfied with Mueller’s investigation.

It is being reported that Mueller just purchased Legal Insurance to protect him if he is investigated.

How did Mr. Weissmann get out of that Hillary Victory Party with his life? The conversations must have been epic, about half-way through the vote counting when the mood went from + to -.

“So, where do you work?”

“Oh, I’m in charge of the fraud section at the FBI.”

“Really? The FBI? With James Comey? The guy who released all those press statements about Hillary’s totally legal and not suspicious email server?”

“Yes, he’s my boss.”

“Really? Well, could you come over here by this open window and look down at something interesting in the street, please? Just lean out there…”

regulus arcturus | December 8, 2017 at 2:55 pm

Time to prosecute Weissmann, and fire Mueller.

Good read at Daily caller on this:
Posted yesterday: Op Ed.

From A Legal Perspective, Mueller’s Investigation is Dead. Here’s Why

Nick James

I could link, but I think that might be bad manners?

Let’s give him a pass in exchange for video of Hillary’s meltdown.

CaliforniaJimbo | December 8, 2017 at 4:36 pm

This is crazy. I’ve always heard that those who investigate sensitive matters should avoid even the appearance of impropriety. So a central figure to the E-mail investigation and future Special Counsel probe ATTENDS a candidates election night party???
I work for a major sports network. I do not wear team jerseys because to do so may insult a member of an opposing team should they be on campus for a show taping. I’d rather make all guests feel comfortable at my work place. How can anyone expect a fair investigation when prominent players are wearing the other teams jerseys?

Dear President Trump: Do you really need any more ammunition before you pull the plug on this sham investigation?

IOW: What are you waiting for?

    Icepilot in reply to irv. | December 8, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    I think President Trump is giving them enough rope to hang themselves.

    If the FISA Warrant to record Flynn’s conversations depends on the dossier, it all blows up, Mueller along with it. If Stzrok’s signature is on the submission paperwork, jail time is in play.

I’m sorry it’s time for Sessions to step back in and put an end to this.

This is getting sillier and sillier.

The Holy Grail of collusion remains elusive, so the Dems and the Anybody-But-Trumpers must be pinning their hopes on a process crime. The more ridiculous and abusive the witch-hunt becomes, the more likely Mueller is to be fired. And that will be the crime they’re waiting for.

For the ageing Dem drones in Washington, the high point of their formative years was watching Party and Press hound Nixon out of office. The mere thought of doing something similar to President Trump must start visions of sugar-plums dancing in their lil’ heads. They probably dream full-time of doing it again.

Now, when did Nixon really step into it? As I recall, things heated up considerably after he fired Archibald Cox (or rather, instructed Elliot Richardson to do it, then Robert Bork). And I’d say that’s what the Dems are hoping to do again. They’re goading Trump with pure silliness, confident that he’s a bull in a china shop—ah, the perils of believing your own propaganda—and all they have to do is poke him enough, and he’ll blunder into the trap they think they’ve laid. He’ll think he’s safe, as the total silliness of the entire Mueller investigation becomes clearer day by day, and it should be obvious to everyone in the country that firing Mueller is the only proper thing to do. But that’s not how prosecutions for process crimes work, and that’s not how the Press will spin it.

The plot won’t work; the parallels between Nixon’s genuine transgressions and Trump’s imaginary ones are actually very weak, but for the Dems, hope springs eternal.

I’d be grateful for any comments that the attorneys here might have on the following. In a comment posted on this site a few days ago, someone suggested that the misconduct of Mueller’s and the DOJ’s lawyers might bring “Giglio” issues into play. That idea is a central point of the following article: .

This article makes the interesting (to a non-lawyer like me, at least) conjecture that Mueller let General Flynn off relatively lightly to avoid exposing Comey and several other DOJ/FBI officials to a devastating cross-examination. Here’s the author’s argument:

“The prospect of having to reveal to defense counsel and the public the FBI’s dirty laundry concerning Strzok—the former deputy head of the agency’s counterespionage unit—plus having to watch as defense attorneys parade the disgraced agent, his disgraced FBI mistress, and possibly his betrayed wife before the jury to explore the extent of his anti-Trump biases pretty much kills the likelihood of Mueller indicting any other Republicans. There’s simply too much downside.

“Undeniably, if Mueller were to proceed with a trial under these tainted circumstances, he would be exposing the country’s vaunted legal system and the agency he once headed, to both national and international ridicule. The FBI’s reputation for impartiality would be forever flushed down the toilet. This price simply is not worth it particularly since he has found no evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia. Indeed, one wonders, cynically, if this realization prompted Mueller to offer a light plea deal to Flynn so that he could quickly sign him up as a cooperator and add the general as a notch on his prosecutorial belt before the DOJ notified the public of the real reason for Strzok’s removal from Mueller’s team? (Arguably, Giglio disclosure obligations only apply after a person has been indicted but not if he pleads guilty pre-indictment.)

“Finally, it is worth noting that under principles analogous to the fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine, any FBI agents or officials who worked with Strzok (including James Comey) would be tainted by, and subject to cross-examination to explore, Strzok’s biases and whether he is the type of person who hid from them his biases while making key charging recommendations.”

    Tom Servo in reply to moonmoth. | December 9, 2017 at 8:20 pm

    You pretty much got it down. There’s no chance of any successful convictions in a contested trial – this investigation now has only one purpose; to try and put up enough of a stench to justify impeachment by a democrat congress after the 2018 elections.

    That’s it, there is nothing else left. Of course that’s probably all there ever was to begin with.

buckeyeminuteman | December 9, 2017 at 9:05 am

Must have been a killer party if the host of honor was too drunk to show up.

OleDirtyBarrister | December 9, 2017 at 2:22 pm

If I were General Flynn, I would be absolutely pissed that I pled guilty to fantasy investigation by Mickey Mouse Mueller. I would feel pretty stupid, and maybe like I had stupid counsel.

Strzok was disqualified as a witness just days after Flynn pled, and he was the govt’s witness against Flynn.

So the govt’s witness is compromised and proceeding to a trial against Flynn would have opened the doors all kinds of exploration and fishing trips, and the FBI and DOJ might have to drop the charges to avoid the second and third order of damage.

Then there was the news about Hillary’s assistants, such as Cheryl Mills, that lied to Strzok and got a free pass. (Which makes Flynn’s case look more like a capricious, abusive, selective prosecution).

Then the additional news of Weissman cheering on Yates and being a Hillary fanboy to the extent of attending her “victory” party.

Then, the trial judge that accepted the plea recused himself.

If I were Flynn, I’d have my lawyers researching a way to vacate the plea deal based on every conceivable allegation of misfeasance and malfeasance of the prosecution and the judge that could reasonably be articulated.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | December 9, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    The govt concealed Strzok’s misfeasance and malfeasance from Flynn and his counsel, as well as Congress.

    That is the sort of thing that the govt would have to disclose to the defense prior to a trial.

    Dealing with the DOJ… gee.
    You have to weigh the charges, the maximum penalty and look at the plea out deal.
    Then you consider…. roll the dice, go fight it…
    Or accept a way out, even if totally innocent.
    The Federal Government has unlimited money.
    If they wanted to, they could destroy just about anybody.

    So.. wanna fight? Better think about it.

    Sometimes, that is the case. Here, I don’t know.

      OleDirtyBarrister in reply to snowshooze. | December 9, 2017 at 4:07 pm

      I would add that I would want to know how willing Trump was to backstop the process with a pardon.

      I predict that Trump will pardon Flynn and grandstand against Crooked Hillary and Crooked Comey and Crooked Meuller in the process.

OleDirtyBarrister | December 9, 2017 at 2:25 pm

The commentary from Daily Caller on the death of the investigation.

    I posted that link, and an extended quote from it, in a comment that I made just above yours, at 7:55 a.m. today. I infer that you agree with the reasoning of the author of that article.

      OleDirtyBarrister in reply to moonmoth. | December 9, 2017 at 4:05 pm

      I don’t know if it is correct or not, but is out there for consumption and debate. People on a political crusade with an unlimited budget and no one to reign them in can afford to be obstinate and capricious.

OleDirtyBarrister | December 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm

I neglected to add in my prior list of things that have come out is that Meuller’s right hand man, Zebley, defended one of Hillary’s apparatchiks.