Media and Dems Strategize How to Salvage McCabe’s Pension
“if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify”
By now you have probably heard that Jeff Sessions fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe just before he could retire and begin collecting a considerable government pension. The prospect of McCabe losing his golden parachute has got liberals very upset for some reason.
Elizabeth Bauer of Forbes says it isn’t clear that McCabe is losing his entire pension, but some Democrats and liberals in media are trying to think of ways to help him anyway.
Kimberly Leonard reports at the Washington Examiner:
Democrats offer to hire Andrew McCabe so he could qualify for his pension
Democratic lawmakers have offered to hire fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe so that he can qualify for his pension.
McCabe’s employment was terminated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions less than 48 hours before he would have qualified for his pension, a day that was also his 50th birthday.
Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., asked McCabe on Twitter to “call him.”
“I could use a good two-day report on the biggest crime families in Washington, D.C.,” he wrote.
Andrew call me. I could use a good two-day report on the biggest crime families in Washington, D.C. https://t.co/DYVP00Em0x
— Rep. Mark Pocan (@repmarkpocan) March 17, 2018
Pocan was responding to a comment from “reporter” Andrea Mitchell:
One suggestion from a McCabe supporter: if a friendly member of Congress hired him for a week he could possibly qualify for pension benefits by extending his service the extra days
— Andrea Mitchell (@mitchellreports) March 17, 2018
Leonard continues:
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., made a similar offer to McCabe, saying that, “We have to stand up to bullies,” citing President Trump and Sessions, and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., urged McCabe to send him a direct message on Twitter to help with his work on the House Judiciary Committee “dealing with threats to the Constitution and the rule of law in America.”
To Andrew McCabe: If you need a federal job, call me on Monday. I am serious. We have to stand up to bullies like @realDonaldTrump & @jeffsessions @USAGSessions #Resist #twill #AndrewMcCabeFired #standuptobullies #chicago @Comey
— Luis V. Gutierrez (@RepGutierrez) March 17, 2018
There’s more. Here’s former Hillary adviser Philippe Reines, via Twitchy:
Pretty sure McCabe isn’t required to serve the days he’s short at the FBI in order to get his full pension. He can do so anywhere in the Federal gov’t. Including on Capitol Hill. (I think.)
Someone like @tedlieu should hire him for a few days. https://t.co/bQxxbR1Spm
— Philippe Reines (@PhilippeReines) March 17, 2018
This is a very good point:
If there is any doubt about Andrea Mitchell’s loyalty and direct line to the Democrats, let this serve as your reminder. (h/t @TwitchyTeam) pic.twitter.com/68YoI1mbHs
— Sandy (@RightGlockMom) March 17, 2018
Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to George W. Bush, wins the day:
Wonderful idea. Every member of Congress should hire fired bureaucrats who lied to an inspector general in the course of a government investigation. Pensions before Honesty. Great slogan. https://t.co/0oMwBmZqek
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) March 17, 2018
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Never mind McCabe is part of a larger conspiracy against Donald Trump. Hopefully McCabe is the first of many to fall as sunlight shines on this cabal of bad actors all the way back to the Obama DOJ and White House.
It is my understanding that the only difference is that if he made it to next week, he could get the money at age 50. Now he gets it at 57. Now confer the people who have been ruined by this creep.
The Democrats and their friends can put together funds collected from other Democrats to pay this terrible man money over the rest of his life.
But that would mean using their own money–something they will never do. They want to take taxpayer $, the only way they do business.
“The prospect of McCabe losing his golden parachute has got liberals very upset for some reason.”
Just a note to instill some reality in this mess…
a “golden parachute” is not a term that applies here whatsoever.
Aptly used, the term applies to an unearned (but sometimes contractual) benefit that a departing person is given as a means to effect their departure, as when an executive is provided a bonus to ease their termination and avoid a lawsuit.
Here, McCabe either earned his pension or he did not. There is no implication of a “golden parachute”.
The fact and reality is, rags, he was fired for cause. He’s not eligible for his pension and other benefits because of his demonstrably dirty deeds.
Regardless of word twisting nuances, McCabe did not earn his goodies. To have them reinstated as a dem political in-your-face to President Trump is, quite literally, a golden parachute.
The fact and reality is, Bare, you’re as full of shit as ever. Earning a pension is never a “golden parachute”, no matter how you twist reality.
As I said, either he did or did not earn it. And if someone helps him…under the rules…that may be an “in your face” to T-rump, but it doesn’t change reality or the meaning of terms.
Luv ya, rags. You’re still simply adorable. Cuss away…it’s so persuasive and elegant.
Btw, did you get that potty mouth from kissing too many never-Trumper rear ends?
Try some logical refutation of what I said, bullshitter. I doubt seriously you blush to use that term. Ergo, I figure you just pretend for the sake of…more bullshit.
your back in name calling mode, you really should see a mental wealth care professional.
if you feel put upon here but still have the obsession to show up is NOT healthy for you.
this is not an attack, but friendly advice.
As I understand it, McCabe will NOT LOSE his pension; he is simply losing the PRIVILEGE of being able to retire with full benefits AT AGE 50! His pension will be available to him at AGE 57, so he WILL lose seven years of full benefits, but that’s all.
Just another FAKE VICTIM.
I have to hand it to you, Rages, you’re the suppository of all information on the internets.
I neither think that McCabe will lose his pension nor cooperate with draining the swamp and I do not believe that he will be found to have committed any significant offense by any white washing SWAMP led investigation.
Dear God. Could this happen? That one offer, about the “Biggest crime families in DC”, would McCabe be willing to write about the Clintons and Kennedys? And is this going to set a precedent for ALL Communist-Democrats when they get fired? We tax-payers are screwed.
As I said in the last LI post on this topic, I doubt he will actually lose his pension – unless he is convicted of a crime. The left is making this stuff up to make Sessions and Trump look bad, IMHO, although there are enough Conservative/right-leaning reporters and bloggers who are eating this stuff up. My previous comment below:
I don’t believe they will take his pension, if he was a GS (a Permanent Full Time or PFT) level employee. He may not get that so-called “golden parachute” – the salary for life, basically – that comes to many federal Senior Executive Service employees (SESs) in the federal government. But I do not think they can take his pension – not unless he is convicted of a crime.
An excerpt from the Ask A Lawyer website and also to be found here:
“…For most any federal worker who is fired for poor performance or for cause, you will not lose your retirement eligibility. If you’re fired and eligible at the time of termination for an “immediate” retirement annuity, you can also file for your retirement annuity after termination, or instead at the time of termination you can simply retire in lieu of being fired. The SF-50 will be coded to reflect that you retired in lieu of being fired to indicate that an adverse action was pending against you when you retired. If you are not eligible for an immediate annuity at the time of termination, you do not lose your eligibility for a “deferred” annuity just like any other federal worker who leaves federal service short of being fully eligible to collect a retirement annuity. Your annuity will be deferred until you reach the age eligibility to collect a deferred annuity.
There are a few statutory exceptions such that being fired under this limited circumstance will indeed cause you to lose your retirement eligibility. Those exceptions are for an employee convicted of a crime against the national security of the United States. The crimes are enumerated at 5 USC section 8312. Here’s a smattering of the crimes enumerated: gathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government; harboring or concealing the enemy; disclosure of classified information; espionage; sabotage against the U.S.; treason, rebellion or insurrection; seditious conspiracy; advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government; activities to harm the U.S. armed forces during war.
Let me repeat: For a termination to affect your retirement annuity, you must be convicted of one of those crimes….”
TY for your clear thinking.
one can only hope that these top level apparatchiks of the federal FBI and 17 similar services who conspired to impeach and otherwise harm the American people (otherwise known as Swamp Creatures) get their comeuppance.
even if the roles of (D) and (R) were reversed, I would feel the same way.
That list of retirement-annulling crimes is amazing in its lack of scope. I notice it doesn’t include many crimes that one would think would make you lose your pension. Embezzlement, assault against a co-worker, fraudulent paperwork, and dereliction (i.e. not coming into work), just for starters.
“The SF-50 will be coded to reflect that you retired in lieu of being fired to indicate that an adverse action was pending against you when you retired”
What’s the point, since this code apparently has no actual effect on your pension eligibility? I suspect this also has the pernicious effect of allowing “retired” employees to get new Federal jobs. I doubt a department would pursue a termination to its end after the employee declares retirement (even if they *can* do that, which is unclear). Some departments can’t hire employees after they’ve been terminated by another department, but since they weren’t technically terminated they’re good to go.
Michael Flynn was charged with a bogus crime and has reportedly have to sell his house to cover his legal defense expenses.
McCabe, Comey have done a lot worse. Why the double standard?
Let me get this straight. Flynn is caught lying to the FBI and now faces financial ruin and jail time while McCabe is caught lying to the FBI and others under oath and is being so mistreated that be deserves his cushy gov’t pension and no jail time. And Kristian Saucier, a Navy Submariner, is caught with a couple of pictures on his cell phone of the station he worked at on the sub and he does hard-time while Hillary and Huma knowing send classified data to personal email accounts and get to skate. Is the only justice left in government hyper partisan justice? Since when are government employees allowed to advance their personal political agendas in the work place?
Ghost Rider: Flynn is caught lying to the FBI and now faces financial ruin and jail time while McCabe is caught lying to the FBI and others under oath
Flynn admitted to lying. McCabe is accused of having lacked in candor, which probably means less than forthcoming.
Ghost Rider: And Kristian Saucier, a Navy Submariner, is caught with a couple of pictures on his cell phone of the station he worked at on the sub and he does hard-time while Hillary and Huma knowing send classified data to personal email accounts and get to skate.
Saucier admitted to taking a number of pictures of classified equipment. The government could not show that Clinton knowingly sent classified data to personal email accounts, nor would it make sense for her to knowingly do so. Clinton relied extensively on the secure State system for classified communications.
Sorry, Zach, but in IG or security investigations, they always ask if you have any other information relevant, or anything that you haven’t said.
The Supreme Court has already said that to dissemble or evade the question is the same as lying. So, yes, McCabe is accused of the same crime as Flynn – and in more counts, since he did it to both the IG investigation and the following OPR investigation.
Your lies, which may have originated with McCabe, are a big part of the reason McCabe was fired. Multiple classified documents, including some marked “CLASSIFIED” (not required for a classified document, but it shoots down the lie that Hillay and Huma didn’t know what they were) were found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. McCabe was the one who was given this info before the election and who chose to sit on it and try to bury it, undoubtedly because of the $700,000 cash bribe he and his wife had already taken from the Clinton organization.
Toranth: The Supreme Court has already said that to dissemble or evade the question is the same as lying.
We’d like a citation to that Supreme Court decision.
Tom Servo: Multiple classified documents, including some marked “CLASSIFIED”
None of the documents on the Clinton email server were property marked classified. Three out of thousands had portion markings, but could easily have been overlooked.
Tom Servo: Anthony Weiner’s laptop
The FBI reported that the emails were either personal or duplicates of emails already investigated.
”None of the documents on the Clinton email server were property marked classified. Three out of thousands had portion markings, but could easily have been overlooked.”
It is illegal to expose classified documents whether or not you know them to be classified and whether or not you exposed them intentionally. In Hillary’s case, she was a source of classified documents; she certainly was not free to publish them before marking them as classified.
MSO: It is illegal to expose classified documents whether or not you know them to be classified and whether or not you exposed them intentionally.
That is incorrect. In Gorin v. United States the Supreme Court held that the Espionage Act requires “the elements of scienter and bad faith”, which was not demonstrated in the Clinton case.
Actually, Flynn did not admit to lying. he admitted that he did not accurately answer the questions placed to him. What is interesting is that Flynn pled guilty to not being truthful to the FBI. There had to be some reason why he would do that rather than mount an defense that he simply made a mistake or did not accurately remember the incident under discussion. He even had the original interviewers, including Strzok, who believed the omission was not intentional.
Saucier did admit that he took the pictures and his actions vis-a-vis his laptop would tend to suggest that he knew his actions to be wrong was trying to eliminate evidence of his actions. His motivation may not have been criminal, but the act was. Fast forward to HRC,
HRC sets up a personal email server through which pass a myriad of classified government documents which ultimately end up in the hands of persons not authorized for access to those materials. She too, should have known that her actions were a violation of the law regarding handling of classified materials, she took the classes after all. Being SecState, she should know which documents, produced on her watch, were classified as well. Then she had her various devices destroyed and, rather than turn over all of the contents of her server, she withheld part of the contents without the authorization of the investigating agency, the FBI. Even worse, it was later discovered that HRC’s closest aid, Huma Abedin, transferred classified documents from that same server to a laptop which was found in the possession of her then-husband Anthony Weiner [aka Carlos Danger] who was not cleared for access to that material. I think that whether HRC admitted that she knew that she was violating the law with regard to the handling of classified material or not is rather immaterial here.
Mac45: Flynn did not admit to lying. he admitted that he did not accurately answer the questions placed to him.
Flynn admitted he “did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations”, that is, he lied.
Mac45: Being SecState, she should know which documents, produced on her watch, were classified as well.
She said she relied upon career State department professionals. Again, the government could not prove she knew classified information was being sent by email. There is no motive for doing so, and she used the secure State Department system extensively.
You are quoting the document submitted by Mueller’s crew, not quoting Flynn. As I mentioned, given the fact that the interviewing agents did not feel that Flynn was being willfully duplicitous, why do you think that Flynn would allegedly make such an admission? After all, it is SOP for people who are charged with homicide to deny that they committed the act, even after eye witness testimony is presented. So, why would Flynn make such admission without compulsion?
As to HRC’s claim that she relied upon career State Dept personnel, what did she rely upon them for? She knew that the server was NOT part of the secure DepState system. She admitted that in an public interview, when she claimed that she did this because Colin Powell told her it was alright. As to being able to prove that she knew classified material was being transmitted in violation of the law, the government never attempted to do that. HRC, the smartest woman in the world, put forth the classic incompetent boob defense. She was simply too stupid to understand what constituted classified material or that having such material on an unsecured private server or other device was a violation of the law. It was just a coincidence that, when access to her server and electronic communication devices was requested, not demanded pursuant to a search warrant as would happen in any other case, those devices were wiped clean and destroyed and when communications which had been on those devices later surfaced, 33000 were retained by HRC and not shown to investigators. Of course, this does not even begin to get into the training which HRC underwent for the handling of classified materials. Any other person would have been indicted, simply for not knowing what was on the private email server that she had set up, if it had ever contained any classified material, which it was proven it did. As for motive, motive is not necessary in any prosecution of the handling of classified material. All that is necessary is the material in question was classified, that the person handling the material or responsible for handling the material knew or should have known that it was classified and that the material was handled in a manner which was not authorized by law. Intent and motivation is not necessary. All of these factors were present in the Servergate case. The Democratic leadership of the FBI/DOJ, and possibly the WH, intervened to short circuit any indictment of HRC for strictly political purposes.
Mac45: You are quoting the document submitted by Mueller’s crew, not quoting Flynn.
Are you saying the court filing misrepresents Flynn’s statement of offense? That would be odd as the court has access to the document. Let’s look:
In other words, Flynn admitted to not merely making false statements, but “did willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations”.
Is this the same court where the original presiding judge, Contreris, either recused himself or was removed from the case and the current judge has ordered the Mueller team to release ALL exculpatory evidence to Flynn’s attorneys and still has not ruled on Flynn’s guilt? That court?
By the way, nowhere in this post does it say that Flynn ADMITTED to any of this:
“FLYNN also falsely stated that he did not remember a follow-up conversation in which the Russian Ambassador stated that Russia had chosen to moderate its response to those sanctions as a result of FLYNN’s request. In truth and in fact, however, FLYNN then and there knew that {it occurred}.”
This is a summary of beliefs of the Mueller team not of a statement of guilt by Flynn.
Mac45: This is a summary of beliefs of the Mueller team not of a statement of guilt by Flynn.
You will find Flynn’s signature, as well as that of his attorney, at the end of his “Statement of Offense“.
Mac45: Any other person would have been indicted,
That is incorrect. Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice had classified information on their private emails. Gee whiz! Powell was using AOL!
Mac45: As for motive, motive is not necessary in any prosecution of the handling of classified material.
The Supreme Court has determined that prosecution under the Espionage Act law requires a finding of “scienter and bad faith”. The Saucier case included a finding that he had knew the information was classified and took the pictures anyway. The Clinton case does not include a finding that she knew the information was classified.
I am not sure if Powell and Rice had any classified materials in their COMMERCIAL email accounts of not. here is the NYT story in which both contest the post classification of any emails as falling under statutory definitions of classified. This appears to be an attempt to excuse HRC’s extended yuse of both her server and email to transmit copious amounts of bono fide classified documents to unauthorized persons. But, I do not believe that either ever set up their own servers outside the DepState system or transmitted any material which they knew, or should have known was classified to any unauthorized person, as HRC did.
As to bad faith, unless HRC can successfully prove an incompetent boob defense, the she, like Saucier, knew, or should have known, that the documents and data transmitted was classified. So, yeh, common folks would likely have been indicted. The DOJ COULD have taken the case to a Grand Jury, which could then have delivered no true bill, clearing HRC. This would have placed the blame for a lack of indictment on the grand Jury and cleared the DOJ of any suspicion in the matter. It did not. Largely because there was a very good chance that a Grand Jury would have delivered a true bill, based soley upon the facts in the case.
Colin Powell’s use of private email was prior to the most recent promulgation of rules prohibiting conduct of federal business on private platforms.
The rule against using private email didn’t exist during Powell’s tenure.
Nice error by omission.
Which is why we know the fix was in. She’s talking about things only an idiot wouldn’t think we’re classified, documents include classification covers and other indications, they have emails from her ordering the removal of classification cover pages, to fail to “find” that she intentionally violated the security handing rules she had to agree to to gain her access is incredibly and totally to fail to follow logic and the duties of any capable investigator.
Mac45: both contest the post classification of any emails as falling under statutory definitions of classified.
Yes, they did. Classification is an administrative procedure. The government said the information was classified. If they didn’t believe the information was classified, then they can’t be charged under the Espionage Act, which requires a finding of “scienter and bad faith”.
Mac45: I do not believe that either ever set up their own servers outside the DepState system
Powell used AOL! That means employees and bots at AOL had access to his emails!
Mac45: unless HRC can successfully prove an incompetent boob defense, the she, like Saucier, knew, or should have known, that the documents and data transmitted was classified.
Under U.S. law, the prosecution has the burden to show evidence of “scienter and bad faith”.
regulus arcturus: Colin Powell’s use of private email was prior to the most recent promulgation of rules prohibiting conduct of federal business on private platforms.
That conflates administrative rules with the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act dates to 1917. If you break administrative rules, you are subject to administrative punishment, such as reprimand or firing. If you break the Espionage Act, you are subject to imprisonment.
BobM: they have emails from her ordering the removal of classification cover pages
She asked that a confidential briefing paper be turned into a “non-paper”, which has a very specific meaning.
How do you know she took any classes? Don’t say “because she had to”; who was going to make her? Certainly don’t say “because everyone in a similar position does”. She’s not everyone. Classes are for the little people. My default assumption is that she decided she didn’t need any steenkin’ classes and blew them off.
There were a couple of reports, early in the controversy that DepState had paperwork showing that she had been “trained” in how to handle classified material, this was required for her to “handle” such material. In fact, page 27 of the 2009 Bureau of Security/Department of State Year In Review brochure specifically says that Secretary Clinton was trained. Later, DepState said that it could not confirm that HRC was ever trained in the handling of classified materials. Of course, DepState is still having trouble producing many of HRC’s emails for various Congressional committees. Perhaps they will “official;ly” locate her training records in the future.
While it is possible that HRC was never trained in the handling of classified materials, it goes beyond belief that the anal-retentive paperwork trolls working in the bowels of Foggy Bottom would not have demanded some written proof that the required classified materials training had been conducted. That it can not be found, now, is more than a little suspicious.
How do I know she took “classes” in INFOSEC as a condition of being granted access to SCI and GENSER classified information?
Because the DoS released the NDAs in which she signed her life away acknowledging that she had received the security indoctrination briefings, all her questions if any had been answered, that the briefing officer had made available to her copies of relevant laws outlining the penalties for, among other breaches of security, unauthorized storage (cough, cough, HOMEBREW BASEMENT SERVER, cough, cough), and that she agreed to be bound by all the conditions laid out in the NDA.
Here is the NDA that she signed for GENSER (general service) classified information.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf
Please note that the second sentence in the first paragraph of the NDA says that, “As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked OR UNMARKED classified information…”
I note this because there is a certain lying POS troll still peddling the long debunked Clinton lie that somehow it makes a difference it the information is properly marked. It makes no difference at all, and it says so in the very first paragraph.
I know because I used to be the briefing officer at a couple of my commands when I was in the Navy. Anyone who is granted access to classified information is required to know classified information when they see it. The first excuse people try when they clearly intended to remove classified from its authorized place of storage (for whatever reasons) is that they didn’t know it was classified because it wasn’t marked. Of course it wasn’t marked; they removed the markings, which is a separate felony. Or, based on Hillary Clinton’s emails, she ordered a subordinate on at least one occasion to remove the classified markings and transcribe the information in an unclassified email to her @clintonmail account.
Here is the NDA she signed for access to TS/SCI information.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf
Note HRC signed both NDAs on 22 January 2009. This is important because this NDA says she is responsible for protecting classified information that is marked SCI or that she knows to be SCI, and if she doesn’t know that she is required to consult with the agency or department that originated the information.
A cheap defense lawyer, and let’s face it that was Comey’s job when he made his announcement that he was recommending against prosecuting her, might try to invent a defense by claiming she didn’t know the sensitive compartmented information was classified at all. That will not fly in a court of law because the judge will instruct the jury, “Ladies and gentlemen, this is a government professional trained to recognize and properly handle classified information” and instruct the jury to ignore any assertions to the contrary.
Both NDAs having been entered into evidence, a judge simply will not permit a defendant to pretend they thought that her obligation to protect classified whether marked or unmarked ends when that classified information becomes so sensitive that it can only be accessed by people who have TS clearances and have been read into the specific compartments (anyone with access to GENSER SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL has access to that information since there are no compartments to be read into; hence general service).
It gets worse for Hillary Clinton. Not only is she required to recognize classified information when she sees it, as SecState she was designated by job title as an Originating Classification Authority by executive order. Here is Barack Obama’s, still available on the Federal Registry site:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/01/05/E9-31425/original-classification-authority
The very first official designated as an OCA under departments and agencies is the secretary of state. I’ve read the FD-302 form of her interview in which she claims not to recall if sha had ever received the training or actually exercised that authority herself. It doesn’t matter. That simply shows she was derelict in her duties if she refused the training which is an aggravating factor, not a mitigating factor.
I agree that she thinks training to safeguard information vital to national security is for the little people, and there is apparently no record of her deigning to submit to the required annual refresher training. But again, any federal judge in this land would have seen that as an aggravating factor and she would have received a sentence on the high end of the scale for each violation. So she would have been in a cell under the prison for the rest of her life.
Which is why her henchmen and cronies had to keep this out of a court room where her flimsy tissue of obvious lies that amount to her only defense (as evidenced by the moronic troll trafficking in them on this thread) would have been shredded within minutes.
They worked for her, not her for them. You seem to be forgetting that. She would never allow them to forget it.
Arminius: … the long debunked Clinton lie that somehow it makes a difference it the information is properly marked.
It doesn’t matter as long as the person knows it is classified, such as in the Saucier case. It may matter when looking at the evidence for “scienter and bad faith”.
Arminius: she ordered a subordinate on at least one occasion to remove the classified markings and transcribe the information in an unclassified email
She requested a briefing be turned into a “non-paper”, which is a perfectly legitimate request.
Arminius: Not only is she required to recognize classified information when she sees it
That is administrative. A criminal conviction would reuqire the government to show that she did, in fact, recognize that the information was classified.
The troll Zachriel continues to traffic in long debunked Clinton crime family lies. All he is demonstrating is that he has no interest in the truth r.e. what the government needs to prove in a national security case involving the intentional mishandling and premeditated unauthorized storage of classified material.
In fact, Clinton already handed the government a slam dunk case that she is guilty as sin.
Don’t be impressed by the Troll’s use of terms the meaning of which he doesn’t know and doesn’t care about. Such as “non-paper.”
He thinks you’re stupid, as does Clinton who is on a worldwide book selling tour in which she is telling everyone that she only lost to Trump because she didn’t call enough people stupid and evil.
If this had seen the inside of courtroom Clinton would have been toast. Which is why she and her defenders have to resort to transparent lies. They have nothing else. The only reason she wasn’t prosecuted is because the fix was in from the start.
Arminius: They have nothing else.
Handwaving. In fact, we have the unanimous decision of the FBI investigators charged in the matter.
Arminius, signing the NDAs is no evidence that she received the training she acknowledged receiving, any more than checking the Terms of Service on a web site is evidence of having read them and consciously agreed to them. I’d bet she signed what was set in front of her, just like everybody does, and was thus never consciously aware of her duties in this area. She just figured it would never be an issue, just as it hadn’t been the last time.
The people you were in charge of briefing in the Navy were not in any position to do something like that. They had bosses and were subject to UCMJ, and if they were ordered to take a class they took it. They were not cabinet secretaries, responsible only to the president, and boss of everyone else around them. Nor were they people who’d already got away with a decades-long career of bribe-taking and ignoring the law, come out of a special counsel’s investigation “guilty as sin, free as a bird”, and yet come this close to winning the presidency. So nothing in your experience with them qualifies you to say what she would have done.
As you noted, Flynn statements weren’t viewed as perjury by either the interviewing agents, nor by other agents who immediately afterwards read them. It was only after Muellers team hoped to “flip” him to go after people higher up the food chain (like Trump) that it “became” intentional perjury.
You can be mistaken when talking to the FBI without it rising to the level of perjury. Otherwise, only a fool would ever interact with the FBI by any method other than written replies to written questions vetted by your personal lawyer.
Flynn plead out after he had already spent his life’s savings in lawyer fees, with no end in sight. In addition, it is rumored that they threatened to investigate his grown son as well. In his place, believing yourself railroaded for doing a wrong you never intended or planned, it makes perfect sense to believe they could frame up something to charge family members on, regardless of actual innocence or guilt.
Lets see FBI agents interview Flynn ,Comey stated they did not believe he was being untruthful .
Comey is fired ,McCabe takes over.
Agents state McCabe was having the 302 s Altered( per Sara Carter)
Then Mueller appointed
Suddenly Flynn is lying
What does 2 and 2 add up to?
“What does 2 and 2 add up to?”
So you’re suggesting that Flynn’s interview transcripts were intentionally altered to imply guilt where there was none?
The evidence seems to be against you.
Indeed, only a fool would ever do that. And many a fool has.
You don’t even have to be mistaken, for it to be perjury. You can tell the exact truth, but there’s no recording of that, and when the agent writes up his notes after the interview, whatever he puts down is thereafter what officially happened, regardless of what actually happened.
“Saucier admitted to taking a number of pictures of classified equipment. The government could not show that Clinton knowingly sent classified data to personal email accounts, nor would it make sense for her to knowingly do so. Clinton relied extensively on the secure State system for classified communications.”
First sentence: No, he did not. He admitted to taking photos in which classified equipment was visible. He did not intentionally take photos of classified equipment, as your language strongly implies. Therefore there was no “intent,” the very missing element you think excuses Hillary. (Note I’m not saying that this excuses Saucier, because I’m about to torpedo the “no intent” argument and I try not to be two-faced about such matters.)
Hillary, on the other hand, was found by investigation to have been “extremely careless” (James Comey’s words) with regard to classified data. “Extreme carelessness” is the legal definition of the term “gross negligence.” In fact, the term was used to substitute in Comey’s statement for “grossly negligent” when it was revised prior to being presented to the public. The potential charge faced by Hillary would have been for “gross negligence.” “Gross negligence” doesn’t require an intentional act, only inaction – that someone neglects to do that which ought to have been done, whether intentionally (trying to circumvent other laws, as in Hillary’s case*) or unintentionally (carelessness or dereliction of duty). Neither Clinton nor Saucier were suspected of “espionage,” which is the intentional gathering and dissemination of classified data. “Espionage” requires intent. “Gross negligence” does not. The statute was written expressly to bring unintentional breaches of national security into the scope of the law in a way not accomplished by the espionage statutes.
Last sentence: “Extensive reliance” on the national security apparatus for secure communications is inadequate, only “complete reliance” conforms with the requirements of the law. Hillary is known to have received, transmitted, stored, and retained classified information unlawfully. She is also known to have demanded violation of the law by SoS employees when they balked at using non-secure communications for classified data (this alone demonstrates “intent”), as well has required others (like her maid) who lacked security clearances to handle classified documents. “Extensive reliance” is no better than “occasional reliance,” which seems to be a better characterization of how Hillary Clinton handled classified data.
*Hillary’s actions with respect to classified information have to be considered in light of the totality of her conduct. Hillary’s conduct overall was consistent with an attempt to intentionally avoid compliance with public records laws. All of her acts that were part of this conduct were intentional, and therefore the way she handled classified information was likewise intentional. It was not merely negligent, but because the law doesn’t require intent, there’d be no need to demonstrate how intent is evidenced by her overall conduct.
The private server setup WAS the “intent”
she specifically planned and executed the system with the full intention of keeping ALL of her emails as SOS out of the hands and eyes of the FOIA
Powell only had a private email account, with no evidence that he used it for anything official.
To liken Hillarys private server to an AOL account is quite dishonest by those who peddle that story
DaveGinOly: First sentence: No, he did not. He admitted to taking photos in which classified equipment was visible.
We stand corrected. Saucier pleaded guilty to “unauthorized possession” and that he “willfully retained” information relating to the national defense.
DaveGinOly: Therefore there was no “intent,”
The intent is in the word “willfully”.
murkyv: she specifically planned and executed the system with the full intention of keeping ALL of her emails as SOS out of the hands and eyes of the FOIA
Clinton used the secure State system extensively for classified information, contradicting your claim. As for non-classified information, perhaps she did. That would be a violation of rules concerning retention of records, but as her State emails were typically sent to others at State, they would be archived in any case.
You have to admire the Dems. Here is a man who violated his oath of office and lied under oath, most call that perjury, and they are going to support him and assist him because he did all of this for Democrats. Even if the loyalty is misplaced, you have got to admire that. If only the Republicans showed even a minute portion of that type of loyalty to their members and supporters. It is pretty bad when the Evil Empire is more praiseworthy than the Rebel Alliance.
It’s easy to adopt this loyalty strategy when a majority of the MSM will provide public cover for your slimy actions. No credit awarded.
When I contrast the loyalty expressed toward McCabe, by the Dems with the actions taken against Roy Moore and support of Connor Lamb by a PAC affiliated with Paul Ryan, I have to give credit to the Dems.
You are stretching it to say that McCabe lied under oath and committed perjury. I have seen no facts to substantiate that, only that he was not honest in an IG investigation that entailed questioning him.
Ironically, Flynn had to surrender and plead for lying to a far bigger liar and cheater than him (Strzok).
It’s just as bad. As a former member of a large police organization, and having been involved in several investigations as both the object of the investigation and as a witness, I can tell you that fudging the truth is considered obstruction, and is grounds for dismissal. So although it doesn’t have the potential for punishments such as those that attend to perjury, there in no more tolerance for it than for perjury.
even if the (D) offers are rejected.
the fact that McCabes wife ran for a political office while he was in a sensitive job showed the hubris and expectation of no consequences on his part.
that the MSM are trying to find ways for a censured FBI apparatchik to get his pension, which was earned under false pretenses shows their ‘fairness’ in reporting.
4th armored div: the fact that McCabes wife ran for a political office while he was in a sensitive job showed the hubris and expectation of no consequences on his part.
McCabe conferred with the FBI ethics department, and took their advice to avoid activities relating to his wife’s campaign. He did not become Deputy Director until after that election.
So he was bribed and corrupt most of his career.
And you can explain his failure to disclose the large cash donation to his wifes campaign how?
murkyv: And you can explain his failure to disclose the large cash donation to his wifes campaign how?
The donation was public.
The records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe left the box blank for wife Dr. Jill McCabe’s salary, as a doctor with Commonwealth Emergency Physicians. And there is no documentation of the hundreds of thousands of campaign funds she received in her unsuccessful 2015 Virginia state Senate race
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/15/fbi-official-did-not-disclose...
murkyv: The records, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe left the box blank for wife Dr. Jill McCabe’s salary, as a doctor with Commonwealth Emergency Physicians.
Corrected link.
Per your own citation: “The rules instructing filers how to complete the OGE 278e form are published by the independent Office of Government Ethics (OGE) in a document titled ‘The Public Financial Disclosure Form (July 2016).’ The form does not require that an employee spouse’s salary be disclosed; only the employer name and type of income required. Nor does the form require or contain a line for campaign contributions, which are not considered income.”
It doesn’t matter. Once his wife received that donation he had no business anywhere near an investigation of Hillary Clinton.
And received and sent emails related to his wife’s campaign from his work account. And that’s all right?
how cute that LI has it’s own resident TROLL (not Rags, who has good points at times)
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/
“Zachriel, angel that rules over memory, presides over the planet Jupiter.”
Fun fact: One of my cats is named “Jupiter”.
Zachriel said:
“Are you saying the court filing misrepresents Flynn’s statement of offense?”
Yes, definitely. That’s why FBI agents will not interview a suspect if they are being recorded. That is the FBI’s official policy.
Local and state law enforcement agencies will make video and audio recordings of interviews, but they are not required to keep those recordings. Which is why as a general rule they destroy them after writing up their reports. The reports then become the official records of the interviews.
When the FBI interviews a suspect (although the the FBI didn’t tell Flynn he was a suspect, because they aren’t required to tell suspects the truth and are like all law enforcement officers allowed to lie during interviews) there will be two agents in the room. One asking the questions, the other taking notes on the answers. When the agents return to the office the agent taking notes types it up as the FD-302 form. The FBI agent’s recollection of the suspect’s responses becomes the official record of what the suspect said.
It doesn’t need to be accurate. It never is. There can be perfectly innocent explanations for this. The FBI agent is recording the suspect’s answers, not the interviewer’s questions. If the interviewing agent deviates from the prepared script, and the recording agent fails to notice, the prepared script becomes the question of record, even if the question the agent actually asked was different.
For instance, if the FBI is investigating a murder, the agent asking may deviate from the script and the agent will ask about a shooting. The interviewee will of course respond to the question actually asked, the one about the shooting. At trial the agents will testify they never asked about a shooting but about a murder, because that was the question they meant to ask. They will testify that they found the suspect’s answer’s troubling because the suspect volunteered information only the killer would have known. People have been convicted of crimes due to innocent mistakes, because not even police officers will remember every word of every question they asked during a four hour interview.
Of course, the process is open to deliberate manipulation as well. Which is why Comey and McCabe wrote memoranda to themselves after their conversations with Trump. It’s completely dishonest what they are doing, but they’ve been doing it their entire careers. They are attempting to introduce those memoranda as a sort of unofficial versions of the FD-302, which in their experience the courts unquestioningly accept as actual accounts of what the suspect said. FBI agents (indeed all law enforcement officers) tie suspects, or rather people they want to turn into informants to get at others higher in the food chain, to statements they SAY the suspect made. Not statements the suspect actually made. And the suspect has no way to fight the accusation that they made false or misleading statements. Because the entity prosecuting the suspect is in total control over what words they choose to put into the suspects mouth.
I’m not planning to visit the troll’s site any time soon as he has made no good points here. He studiously avoids the key point, actually. Which is, of course, at the very least lying by omission. Certain people are subject to prosecution, while others are protected from prosecution.
It doesn’t matter that the FBI didn’t think Flynn lied to them. Mueller isn’t bound by the FBI’s prior decision and his chief attack dog, Andrew Weissmann, is the one who came up with the theory that Flynn lied. Here’s the statute Flynn supposedly fell afoul of:
“18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;…”
Note how broad this is. If you’re talking to any federal employee about “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States” and if the employee(s) say that you gave contradictory statements they can accuse you of making false or misleading statements, or that you gave any incomplete answers by failing to recollect any detail they deem relevant (they had recorded Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak) they can accuse you of concealing a material fact.
And as the accused you have no defense. Your only defense is never, ever talk to a federal employee about anything subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Government. Which means never talk to a federal employee, particularly a federal employee with law enforcement or investigative powers.
That was Flynn’s mistake. They wanted informants, and once Flynn talked to agents events were entirely out of his control. The FBI concluded that Flynn did not knowingly and willfully make false or misleading statements nor did he knowingly conceal any material facts. That is no doubt true. But Weissmann has a track record, and Weissmann will compel false testimony from witnesses. You have to tell Weissmann what he wants to hear if you want to avoid prosecution (for crimes that don’t even exist). So while Flynn undoubtedly didn’t lie to the FBI, he would have to lie and say he knowingly and willfully made false and misleading statements to get the plea deal. Which spared his son from a vindictive prosecution, as Weissmann was threatening to go after Flynn’s son despite the fact that junior hadn’t committed any crimes. The process is the punishment, as Flynn has found out.
And again this is part of Weissmann’s track record. In order to get Enron CFO Andrew Fastow to talk he indicted his wife Lea on a trumped-up tax charge. After Fastow agreed to cooperate to save his wife Weissmann allowed her to plead to a misdemeanor but as originally overcharged Weissman was threatening to put her away for years. Harvard professor and renowned lawyer Alan Dershowitz summed up at the time what it meant for Fastow to “cooperate” with Weissmann:
“Andrew Fastow is being taught not only to sing but also to compose. To keep his wife out of prison, Fastow will now give the prosecutors whatever testimony they want against his bosses.”
Weissmann is scum, as anyone who recalls his scorched earth tactics when he went after Enron and Arthur Anderson can attest. Flynn was taught not only to sing but to compose as well; he said what he had to say to get the plea deal that spared his son and what’s left of all he worked his entire life to put together.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/22/christopher-wray-robert-muellers-top-prosecutor-kn/
“Mueller’s top gun in Russia probe known for hardball tactics, overturned rulings
Has history of intimidating low-level Mafiosos and corporate figures to force them to snitch
FBI Director Christopher A. Wray was an assistant attorney general in 2004 when he heaped praise on an ambitious Mafia-tested prosecutor while promoting him to the top of the Justice Department’s high-profile Enron task force.
Mr. Wray specifically lauded Andrew Weissmann for obtaining convictions against two Enron clients: accounting giant Arthur Andersen and executives at banking dynamo Merrill Lynch.”
Weissmann put thousands of people out of work at Arthur Andersen for conduct he knew full well was not criminal. The opinion rendered by the SCOTUS in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005) makes that abundantly clear, which is why the government fought tooth and nail to have the district court issue jury instructions that (like Comey did to exonerate Clinton) rewrote the statute (but in Weissmann’s case to fraudulently gain a conviction.* The court threw out the case against Arthur Andersen but the damage was already done. Everyone who worked there was out of work.
This is the kind of work that gets you praise from the current FBI director and promotions at DoJ.
Four executives at Merrill Lynch were initially convicted because the Government (again, Andrew Weissmann) frankly lied and misrepresented the statute. These convictions were tossed out by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals because the conduct of these executives was “not criminal as charged,” the indictment was “flawed,” and consequently the appeals court expunged the convictions from these men’s records.
“…How Mr. Weissmann operated over a decade ago offers possible glimpses at how he carries out orders today from his longtime mentor, Mr. Mueller.
…By the time he left in 2005, he had rung up some impressive numbers, such as 22 guilty pleas and millions of dollars in restitution. But he also suffered historic courtroom losses. And how he won and how he lost is still the subject of bitter comments from his adversaries in Houston.
‘Do not misunderstand my disdain for him with ineffectiveness or something not to be concerned with,’ said Dan Cogdell, who represented three Enron defendants. “He’s a formidable prosecutor. If I’m Donald Trump and I know the backstory of Andrew Weissmann, it’s going to concern me. There is no question about it.’
The backstory: Defense attorneys say Mr. Weissmann bent or broke the rules. As proof, they point to appeals court decisions, exhibits and witness statements.
They say he intimidated witnesses by threatening indictments, created crimes that did not exist and, in one case, withheld evidence that could have aided the accused. At one hearing, an incredulous district court judge looked down at an Enron defendant and told him he was pleading guilty to a wire fraud crime that did not exist…”
Weissmann’s team yellow-highlighted witness statements that were most favorable to the defense. Then they created a list of what eventually totaled 144 “unindicted co-conspirators” and threatened those witnesses with prosecution (again, the process is the punishment, so they threatened them with personal, professional, and financial ruin) if they testified for the defense. Then in order to fake compliance with the judges’ orders to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense Wiessman’s team turned over false, misleading, and incomplete “summaries” of what those witnesses had to say.
As far as manufacturing crimes whole cloth I will quote the relevant portion of the SCOTUS opinion in the Andersen case and link to an excellent article by Andrew McCarthy who lays out how Weissmann (and Mueller) are up to the old tricks. If people are not guilty according to the letter of the statutes they are charging people with violating, rewrite the statute.
How does Weissmann get away with it? The swamp takes care of its own. If you’re above the law like Obama, Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe and Weissmann you can commit blatant crimes right out in the open and you will be protected by the similarly corrupt.
Shortly after the Enron task force disbanded, and then FBI Director Mueller brought Weissmann onboard as an FBI attorney, two prominent attorneys, W. William Hodes and Sydney Powell filed a substantial grievance with hundreds of pages of exhibits with the New York State Bar against Weissmann for his criminal abuse of power as a prosecutor.
These are not crackpots. Hodes has written numerous law books, such as The Law of Lawyering, while Powell has written Licensed to Lie; Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. All you need to do is search on Hodes’ full name to get his C.V., or go to Powell’s book website. First Powell’s bio:
“Sidney Powell served in the Department of Justice for ten years in Texas and Virginia and has devoted her private practice to federal appeals for the past twenty years. She was the youngest Assistant United States Attorney in the country when she was appointed. Later, she became Chief of the Appellate Section for the Western and Northern Districts of Texas. In addition to practicing law, she now serves as a Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and a Senior Policy Advisory for America First.
She is a past-president of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers and of the Bar Association of the Fifth Federal Circuit. Recognized by her peers as a “Super Lawyer” and named as one of the “Best Lawyers in America” for years, she has been lead counsel in more than 500 appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, resulting in more than 180 published opinions. Powell’s briefs have long been featured as samples for practitioners…”
And portions of Hodes’ C.V.:
“College:
Harvard College, B.A., 1966 (cum laude in general studies).
Law School:
Rutgers Law School, J.D., 1969 (with highest honors).
…Employment:
Associate, Smith & Scheuermann, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 1969 to July 1970.
Assistant Corporation Counsel, City of Newark, New Jersey, October 1970 to December 1973.
Staff Attorney, Education Law Center, Newark, New Jersey, December 1973 to June 1978.
Designated Counsel (pool attorney), Office of the Public Defender of New Jersey, Appellate Section, September 1971 to June 1978.
Academic Appointments (see below), September 1978 to December 1999.
Law Clerk to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, United States Supreme Court, (sabbatical leave) August 1996 to July 1997.
Owner and President, The William Hodes Law Firm, July 1999 to present.
Academic Appointments, 1978-1999:
Bigelow Teaching Fellow and Lecturer in Law, University of Chicago Law School, September 1978 to June 1979.
Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, August 1979 to December 1999.
Director, Indiana University School of Law, China Summer Program, Shanghai, 1987 and 1989.
Scholar-in-Residence and Lecturer, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, Spring, 1989.
Visiting Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of Law, Fall 1990.
Visiting Professor of Law, University of Illinois College of Law, Fall 1994.
Professor Emeritus of Law, Indiana University, January 2000 to present…”
The DoJ was defending Weissmann against the charges in this grievance since he was then working for Mueller. These charges could have gotten Weissmann disbarred. The New York State Bar sat on the grievance for months. Then, out of the blue Hodes and Powell received a declination letter from the DoJ’s “Office of Professional Responsibility.” Without providing any notice to Hodes or Powell, the NY State Bar handed the case off to the DoJ to decide. And, surprise, surprise, the DoJ decided the charges against their client, the charges they were defending Weissmann against before the bar association, had no merit.
That’s how corrupt this process is, if you’re a leftist.
First, as promised Andy McCarthy lays out how Mueller (although this has Weissmann’s fingerprints all over it; it’s Weissmann’s M.O.) is simply rewriting statutes that nobody who he has or is setting his sights on can possibly be guilty of violating into statutes than anybody and everybody is guilty of since they aren’t actually crimes in the federal criminal code:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/muellers-investigation-flouts-justice-department-standards/
“…As I pointed out when Mueller first indicted Manafort and Gates, there is no such offense in federal law as “conspiracy against the United States.” What Section 371 criminalizes (besides the afore-described conspiracy “to commit any offense” under federal penal law) is conspiracy “to defraud the United States” (emphasis added).
Defraud is a loaded word that prosecutors have a notorious history of stretching beyond recognition. Because an important purpose of the criminal law is to put people of average intelligence on notice of what is forbidden, words in criminal statutes are construed in accordance with their commonsense meaning. The common understanding of “defraud” is illegally to obtain money or property from someone by deception. To defraud the United States, then, is to swindle or embezzle from its government. Nevertheless, relying on extravagant precedents from federal circuit courts of appeal, the Justice Department instructs that fraud can theoretically be expanded to include “any willful impairment of the legitimate functions of government.” (See U.S. Attorneys Manual, Criminal Resource Manual Section 923.)
Mueller has taken this expansive construction and run with it: Anything that two or more people do that in any way hampers the ability of Leviathan to perform its metastasizing functions could conceivably be an actionable “conspiracy against the United States,” even if Congress has not seen fit to criminalize it. Thus, two people who fail to register as foreign agents do not just conspire to violate FARA; they “conspire against the United States” by impairing the Justice Department’s maintenance of an accurate foreign-agent registry. Two people who fail to file foreign-bank forms “conspire against the United States” by impairing the Treasury Department’s monitoring of assets held by Americans overseas.
. . . And, just to extend this logic, let’s say a president and his subordinates were to fire the FBI director or consider firing a special counsel. Even if the Constitution permits this and no law directly forbids it, mightn’t they, too, be deemed to have “conspired against the United States” by impairing the government’s investigative functions?
The Supreme Court has never ruled on this theory that prosecutors are empowered to legislate previously unknown crimes on the rationale that government functions have somehow been undermined. The High Court has, however, invalidated a theory that is very close. In the 1980s, the Justice Department attempted to use the federal mail-fraud statute to prosecute corrupt public officials. Prosecutors did not just claim that the officials had stolen money or tangible property; they further theorized that “fraud” included the concept of depriving citizens and the government itself of their “intangible right” to have public affairs conducted honestly.
In its 1987 ruling in McNally v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that prosecutors could construct a “deprivation of honest services” crime out of a fraud statute, and it chastised the lower courts for indulging this errant interpretation. The justices reaffirmed the Court’s long-held conclusion that
the words “to defraud” commonly refer to wronging one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes, and usually signify the deprivation of something of value of by trick, deceit, chicane or overreaching.
(Emphasis added; citations and internal quotation marks omitted.)
In the fraud statute, the Court reasoned, Congress was focused on “frauds involving money or property.” If there were any ambiguity about this, Congress could clear it up by enacting a more expansive statute “in clear and definite language.” But, the justices admonished, “there are no constructive offenses” — prosecutors have to content themselves with misconduct that “is plainly within the statute”; only the legislature has the power to invent new crimes.
…The lesson is clear: The concept of fraud, including fraud on the government, is to be given its traditional, commonsense meaning of a deprivation of money or tangible property. If there is to be criminalization of other kinds of schemes that deprive the government, not of its tangible assets, but of its capacity to carry out its functions effectively, it is for Congress to proscribe these schemes in clear criminal statutes. Prosecutors may not legislate new crimes by mushrooming the definition of “fraud.”
Yet this is exactly what Mueller is doing…”
*The relevant portion of the Anderson opinion in which the SCOTUS threw out the convictions because Weissmann strong-armed the judge to issue jury instructions that rewrote the statute so he could convict his targets.
“…The outer limits of this element need not be explored here because the jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA–213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly” so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA–212.
The parties vigorously disputed how the jury would be instructed on “corruptly.” The District Court based its instruction on the definition of that term found in the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instruction for §1503. This pattern instruction defined “corruptly” as “ ‘knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the integrity’ ” of a proceeding. Brief for Petitioner 3, n. 3 (emphasis deleted). The Government, however, insisted on excluding “dishonestly” and adding the term “impede” to the phrase “subvert or undermine.” Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). The District Court agreed over petitioner’s objections, and the jury was told to convict if it found petitioner intended to “subvert, undermine, or impede” governmental factfinding by suggesting to its employees that they enforce the document retention policy. App. JA–212.
These changes were significant. No longer was any type of “dishonest[y]” necessary to a finding of guilt, and it was enough for petitioner to have simply “impede[d]” the Government’s factfinding ability. As the Government conceded at oral argument, “ ‘impede’ ” has broader connotations than “ ‘subvert’ ” or even “ ‘undermine,’ ” see Tr. of Oral Arg. 38, and many of these connotations do not incorporate any “corrupt[ness]” at all. The dictionary defines “impede” as “to interfere with or get in the way of the progress of” or “hold up” or “detract from.” Webster’s 3d 1132. By definition, anyone who innocently persuades another to withhold information from the Government “get[s] in the way of the progress of” the Government. With regard to such innocent conduct, the “corruptly” instructions did no limiting work whatsoever.
The instructions also were infirm for another reason. They led the jury to believe that it did not have to find any nexus between the “persua[sion]” to destroy documents and any particular proceeding.[Footnote 10] In resisting any type of nexus element, the Government relies heavily on §1512(e)(1), which states that an official proceeding “need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense.” It is, however, one thing to say that a proceeding “need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense,” and quite another to say a proceeding need not even be foreseen. A “knowingly … corrup[t] persaude[r]” cannot be someone who persuades others to shred documents under a document retention policy when he does not have in contemplation any particular official proceeding in which those documents might be material.
We faced a similar situation in Aguilar, supra. Respondent Aguilar lied to a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent in the course of an investigation and was convicted of “ ‘corruptly endeavor[ing] to influence, obstruct, and impede [a] … grand jury investigation’ ” under §1503. 515 U. S., at 599. All the Government had shown was that Aguilar had uttered false statements to an investigating agent “who might or might not testify before a grand jury.” Id., at 600. We held that §1503 required something more—specifically, a “nexus” between the obstructive act and the proceeding. Id., at 599–600. “[I]f the defendant lacks knowledge that his actions are likely to affect the judicial proceeding,” we explained, “he lacks the requisite intent to obstruct.” Id., at 599.
For these reasons, the jury instructions here were flawed in important respects. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.”
The troll is basically lying through his teeth to defend police state tactics when his side uses them, 4th AD.
“Weissmann put thousands of people out of work at Arthur Andersen for conduct he knew full well was not criminal.”
A more precise number is 90k people. Weissmann, Mueller’s rabid attack dog, sent 90k people to the unemployment line just to put a notch on his belt.
“That’s why FBI agents will not interview a suspect if they are being recorded. That is the FBI’s official policy”
It seems to me that the only reason you would have such an official policy is if your unofficial policy is to lie about what a suspect says or does during the interview and you don’t want the suspect to be able to expose that lie. I wouldn’t say a thing if it’s not also being recorded by somebody loyal to me, like my attorney. Of course since the only official transcript of the interview is the officer interviewing me, he can put any words into my mouth he wants, even if I actually said nothing.
“Local and state law enforcement agencies will make video and audio recordings of interviews, but they are not required to keep those recordings. Which is why as a general rule they destroy them after writing up their reports”
The “note taking” officer can write down anything he wants, no matter what the interviewee actually said. Such a policy seems tailor made for official corruption. I’m amazed that courts accept this. If we put this in another context, and the court knew I as a private citizen made a sound recording but destroyed it and gave them a paper transcript instead, I am certain I would be up on obstruction charges in no time flat.
“It seems to me that the only reason you would have such an official policy is if your unofficial policy is to lie about what a suspect says or does during the interview and you don’t want the suspect to be able to expose that lie. I wouldn’t say a thing if it’s not also being recorded by somebody loyal to me, like my attorney…”
Correct. I was tongue in cheek when I said the only way to protect yourself is to never talk to a federal employee about any matter subject to the jurisdiction. What happened to Flynn is a classic FBI manipulation technique. When the FBI agent who took the notes types it up into the FD-302 form, you are tied to what they say you said. Suppose they were to subpoena Flynn to talk to the grand jury. Flynn can either insist on telling the truth, thereby creating a prima facie case of making false statements to the FBI. Or he can knuckle under and stick to the FBI’s version of events. If he continues to object that the FBI’s version is wrong then he has perjured himself by lying to the grand jury.
The way to protect yourself is to remember just how broad 18 USC section 1001 really is. Flynn knew or should have known that the FBI was investigating supposed collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. He should have refused to talk to Strzok and the other agent and called his lawyer (what, you work in the WH, any WH, and don’t have a lawyer?).
His lawyer would have called the appropriate P.O.C. at the FBI and invited them to meet at his office the next day, where his client would be happy to talk to them.
Flynn and his attorney would have greeted the FBI agents, and then the attorney would have pulled a tape recorder out of a drawer and put it right in the middle of his desk and started recording. The subsequent conversation would have gone very close to word for word like this.
Lead agent: “I’m sorry sir, but it’s FBI policy that we don’t record interviews. You’ll have to turn that off.”
Attorney: “It’s my office. I don’t have to turn it off.”
Lead agent: “Then we won’t be able to conduct the interview.”
Attorney: “I’m very sorry to hear, Agent (name on business card), that you can’t conduct an interview while I’m making an accurate record of the questions and answers. Thank you very much for stopping by.”
Agents leave, stop tape.
By the by, it isn’t only I who recognize the Flynn plea deal for what it is. Since compromised judge Rudolph Contreras was recused, the new judge, Emmet G. Sullivan, has ordered the Special Counsel to turn over all potential exculpatory evidence to him. He, Sullivan will not allow the Mueller team to determine on their own what is exculpatory. Apparently Weissmann’s noteriety for using dirty tricks and violating the law precedes him.
This is unprecedented. Essentially the judge is telling the world that Mueller/Weissmann did not turn over exculpatory evidence to the Flynn legal team before striking the plea agreement as the law requires. So he wants it now, before sentencing, so he can remedy the error. There’s only one reason he would do this. He suspects a fatal flaw in the plea agreement.
In other news of Mueller’s bag of dirty tricks, I somehow missed this last year. Another of Mueller’s attack dogs is tainted by prosecutorial overreach from the Enron case.
https://jonathanturley.org/2017/06/12/mueller-hires-justice-official-with-history-of-arguing-for-expansive-interpretation-of-obstruction-of-justice/
“…Dreeben argued in an unsuccessful appeal of the prosecution of Arthur Anderson where the Justice Department advanced a sweeping interpretation of obstruction of justice — an interpretation that I criticized as wildly overbroad. The interpretation resulted in a unanimous rejection of the Supreme Court. Given the call for a charge of obstruction against Trump (and the view of some of us that there remains considerable statutory barriers to such a charge), Dreeben’s addition should be a concern to the Trump defense team.
Arthur Anderson LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), involved the firm’s conviction related to the Enron scandal. The Justice Department alleged that the firm (which was Enron’s accounting firm), instructed its employees to destroy documents after they were aware of the investigation into Enron by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The firm was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A) and (B) for the crime of “knowingly … corruptly persuad[e] another person … with intent to … cause” that person to “withhold” documents from, or “alter” documents for use in, an “official proceeding.” However, the court instructed the jury that they could convict “even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful.” The unanimous court, in a decision by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, disagreed and reversed the conviction…”
To repeat, Weissmann had his team strong arm the judge to rewrite the statute in the jury instructions so that perfectly honest and innocent conduct could convict Arthur Anderson under a statute that in white and black text requires dishonest and corrupt conduct. Which is why the SCOTUS through out the conviction that put 90,000 people out of work 9-0.
So Mueller is trying to build an “Obstruction” case that he already knows would never hold up in court. But the same rejected legal theory will be good enough for the Democrats politically. Which is what an impeachment is, a political circus.
Very interesting. If Mueller’s team is populated with members of known low character who are ethically compromised, then what does it say about the man who hired them?
Zachriel: Are you saying the court filing misrepresents Flynn’s statement of offense?
Arminius: Yes, definitely.
We quoted directly from Flynn’s signed Statement of Offense.
This outrage over this firing is just democrat hypocrisy: how long would it take for any boss in business or industry to fire with cause an employee he just found out tried to sabotage him? Would anyone, even liberals, be outraged if the boss were Hillary, Bill or Obama? “Of course he was fired” would be the normal reaction.
Good point. These are the same people who think Trump should be “impeached” for getting facts wrong and hurting feelings in his tweets.
http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-press-defends-mccabes-crime.html
Why the press defends McCabe’s crime
Lying to the FBI is a crime. Andrew McCabe lied to the FBI even as he was the agency’s deputy director. This cost him his job as deputy director of the FBI. In a just world, prosecutors would indict him just as they did Martha Stewart (and others).
read the whole thing
McCabe’s statement that his “leak” to reporters had the blessing of the Director directly contradicts Comey’s testimony to Congress
“By now you have probably heard that Jeff Sessions fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe…”
I did hear that. But the anti-Trumpers (of all persuasions) seem to have heard that the president fired him. And, judging by their reactions, fired him for no good cause whatsoever.
Have the democrats who are creating two-day “make work” jobs for McCabe posted the jobs? Have they interviewed other candidates? Is a white male the only qualified candidate for a two-day make work job? Have they opened similar jobs for POC?
I have a better idea: give him his pension in exchange for flipping against obama, lynch, clinton, jarrett, comey, brennan, clapper, etc.
“Here is the reality: I am being singled out and treated this way because of the role I played, the actions I took, and the events I witnessed in the aftermath of the firing of James Comey.”
Let’s see: Bolles School, Duke University (B.A.), Washington University (J.D.). And that’s the best you’ve got.
You are pathetic and were clearly over-employed.
What a whiner!
The only reason he can retire at 50 is his law enforcement officer status. Since he has worked for over twenty years he can retire at 50. This termination can not stop his pension.
Yes, but his pension is prorated. And he won’t be able to collect immediately but will have to wait until he’s 57.
That will effect how much he collects.
He could also have an issue about health insurance if he has to wait until he is 57 to officially retire. If he is off the rolls until he reaches the age of 57 he probably would not be able to retain his nice govt health insurance. He’d have to buy and pay for his own health insurance.
I forgot to point out the relevant point because I thought it was extremely obvious. Yes, McCabe can retire at 50 as a federal LEO and get his full pension and benefits immediately.
Unfortunately Sessions fired him two days before his 50th Birthday. He was born on 18 Mar 1968, so he would have turned 50 yesterday.
It’s not an issue of having enough years in federal service. He has enough. This moronic “Pensions for perjury” plan the Democrats have to hire him for a few days will not change the fact that he still will not qualify for the law enforcement retirement package because it won’t change the fact he was fired from the FBI before he reached 50. All it shows is that they don’t have a clue how the federal retirement system works for the “little people.”
He will have to reach 57 before he gets his full pension and benefits no matter what the Democratic Party crime syndicate does.
I’ve been laughing all weekend at these fools.
I can’t help but wonder if those on the left that stood to benefit from McCabe holding firm against Trump promised him they had his back on this and that now that he’s screwed, they are scrambling to keep him happy without actually writing him a check.
He has to be convicted of a crime. Right? So is there still time for him to plea out and give them what it is they want and come away without an actual conviction?
Zach: “Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice had classified information on their private emails. Gee whiz! Powell was using AOL!”
The law was different back then. Are you being deliberately dishonest? Or are you merely sliming innocent reputations because you are intellectually lazy and ignorant?
Here is the NYT story on this. Note that the “emails” in question included 2 for Powell and 10 for Rice and, in all cases, the “documents” were not classified until years later [after Servergate broke] and then only to the level of confidential and were never disseminated to anyone not authorized to view such material.
I’m sorry. I keep forgetting to include the link to the NYT article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html
Mac45: Note that the “emails” in question included 2 for Powell and 10 for Rice and, in all cases
The vast majority of Powell’s emails were never recovered.
Mac45: were never disseminated to anyone not authorized to view such material.
Gee whiz. It was an AOL account. AOL had access.
You fail to acknowledge that none of the emails in either Powell’s or ice’s accounts were classified when they were transmitted. You also coniveniently ignore the fact that neither of them transmitted any classified material, including those retroactively classified as “confidential” to anyone not authorized to recieve them. HRC, on the other hand had a copious amount of classified material which was sent to her server, including a number of documents classified as being Top Secret and she passed those along to people not cleared for such information, such as John Podesta. Then we have the Weiner laptop.
Keep trying to spin this. But, facvts are not your friend in this case.
Mac45: You fail to acknowledge that none of the emails in either Powell’s or ice’s accounts were classified when they were transmitted.
Not marked classified, at least. Powell had the task of recognizing classified information, even if not marked. Furthermore, we don’t know how much classified information went through Powell’s email — because he was using AOL, and the records were not archived.
Mac45: You also coniveniently ignore the fact that neither of them transmitted any classified material, including those retroactively classified as “confidential” to anyone not authorized to recieve them.
Powell transmitted classified information to …, wait for it, AOL.
In any case, he didn’t know the information was classified, so the he didn’t break the law.
Fen: The law was different back then. Are you being deliberately dishonest? Or are you merely sliming innocent reputations because you are intellectually lazy and ignorant?
The Espionage Act was enacted in 1917 and hasn’t been amended since 1961. The relevant sections haven’t been amended since they were originally enacted. Are you being deliberately dishonest? Or are you merely sliming innocent reputations because you are intellectually lazy and ignorant?
More transparent lies from the troll.
Yes, of course the Espionage Act of 1917 established the requirements for the executive branch’s email use and retention policies.
I believe it also mentions Instagram.
So much unintentional comedy from the troll. It makes me laugh.
Arminius: Yes, of course the Espionage Act of 1917 established the requirements for the executive branch’s email use and retention policies.
The claim was the law had changed. However, the relevant law hasn’t change. Additionally, just because the government says something is classified is not sufficient for a successful prosecution. The government must show that the information is “connected with or relating to the national defense”. Again, you conflate administrative rules with the law.
The administrative rules are the law, and yes, they changed. There was no official rule that email counted as a government record and had to be retained, until about 2007 or so.
Milhouse, the troll helpfully reminds us that in addition to violating the Espionage Act Hillary! also blatantly violated the Federal Records Act.
As technology changes, the National Archivist updates the regulations that executive branch departments and agencies must comply with in order to comply with the Federal Records Act.
The bottom line is the Powell complied with the regulations in force during his tenure as SecState (2001 – 2005).
The regulations had changed by 20 January 2009 when HRC was installed. Hillary!’s, and the troll’s, defense of her email practices amounts to saying that she complied with the law circa 2004.
But all the two of them have is the ability to spew squid ink hoping to confuse people and it’s hilarious because it’s just not working. A couple of defenses HRC and her pathetic defenders have tried include:
“Powell and Rice used private email, too.” As we’ve pointed out, it’s irrelevant to what regulations HRC was required to comply with beginning in 2009.
“Congressional office holders use private email addresses.” The FRA doesn’t apply to Congress; only to the executive branch.
“Jeb Bush used a private email server.” This was the biggest side splitter of them all. Bush was the governor of FL, not a federal employee. He didn’t have to comply with any federal administrative statutes or regulations. He had to comply with FL state law.
Then there’s the issue of those 2 supposedly classified emails. I think it’s pretty simple; the Secretary of State is designated an original classification authority. The 2 emails in question were originated by the DoS. Powell as the OCA determined they were unclassified. He was acting entirely within his authority. The fact that the Clinton Klown Kar defense team monkeyed with the classification of those emails later to create this false “they all did it” impression doesn’t change basic facts. As the OCA for the DoS Powell (and Clinton, although she didn’t bother to get the simple six step training or exercise that authority) Powell used his authority to classify original documents. No one has the power to gainsay him, not even DoS apparatchiki trying to save Hillary!’s Bacon.
HRC on the other hand had NSA, CIA, NGIA, and other agency classified information on her homebrew unprotected unclas server. She had no authority to ignore the classification determination already made by other OCAs acting within their authority. But she did.
Is this hard to understand?
Oh, and turning to you, troll.
“Additionally, just because the government says something is classified is not sufficient for a successful prosecution. The government must show that the information is “connected with or relating to the national defense”.”
Oh, troll, I wish some lawyer would be stupid enough to try that in a court of law because HRC would be sent away for centuries. The time for raising those issues is before you release that information into the wild with flamboyant reckless disregard. Not after you get caught with classified information in your private possession.
All the government needs to prove is that its HRC’s signature on those NDAs. That’s how it works in the real world.
But continue to beclown yourself, por favor.
Milhouse: The administrative rules are the law
There is nothing in the Espionage Act about administrative rules. If anything, the courts have ruled that the mere fact of government classification is not sufficient for conviction under the Act, but that it requires a jury finding that the information is connected with or relating to the national defence.
Milhouse: There was no official rule that email counted as a government record and had to be retained, until about 2007 or so.
The Espionage Act concerns “information respecting the national defence”. If email contains such information, then it is covered under the Espionage Act. It has nothing to do with administrative rules.
The courts have ruled that email is a record under the law. See Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President 1993, 1999.
Arminius: As technology changes, the National Archivist updates the regulations that executive branch departments and agencies must comply with in order to comply with the Federal Records Act.
That’s right. The Federal Records Act grants the Archivist of the United States the authority as to what constitutes a Federal record under the Act.
Arminius: “Powell and Rice used private email, too.” As we’ve pointed out, it’s irrelevant to what regulations HRC was required to comply with beginning in 2009.
Not under the Espionage Act, which is the topic of discussion.
Wouldn’t McCabe imperil his lawsuit against his firing if he did sign on with another sucker fed employer?
After WWI ended, the Western Allies told the German’s to prosecute those of their citizens the Allies had deemed war criminals. The Germans gave those men a slap on the wrist, admonished them to never do those kinds of things again and go live your life like ordinary humans.
After WWII, with those events in mind, the Allies decided to prosecute those they had deemed war criminals themselves and not leave their prosecutions up to the Germans again, ergo the Nuremberg Tribunals.
Unfortunately DC today behaves more like the post WWI Germans, especially when the criminals are Democrats.