@BrittHume called the transcript an interesting read. I hate to give legal advice to Mueller’s elite team of attorneys but pissing off the judge in charge of your case is a dumb plan. Evidently, Judge Ellis holds the provisions of the Special Counsel to a much higher standard than the standards used to get indictments in the “drug area”. Like Trey Gowdy, he probably hoped that the Mueller team would go out of their way to make this case about following the law and not giving “a whit about politics“. That is the essence of the Special Counsel regulations and why the Special Counsel is an improvement over the Independent Counsel. For a high profile, highly politicized case like this, it was incredibly important that the Mueller team follow the law precisely so that there would be no doubt in the public eye that justice was blind to the politics. Both Judge Ellis and the Mueller team acknowledge that this case was an attempt to coerce justice out of nothing. Where they differ is that the Mueller team is repeating the worst aspects of the Independent Counsel rules and hoping they can get away with it.
Some Interesting Points Judge Ellis Made
1. Why did the prosecutors present a redacted version of the August 2 memo to the Judge?
Judge Ellis made it plain that he handled cases containing classified information(CIPA) before. He found it disrespectful that the prosecutors determined that the redacted information was not relevant to this case and did not seek out his opinion. This would have been a minor point except that the Department of Justice has been accused of stonewalling Congressional inquiries. I do not know if this influenced his questions but I think he made it perfectly clear that stonewalling the judge in charge of your case is just plain stupid.
2. Does the Special Counsel have unfettered power?
This question came from the expanded scope of the investigation. Judge Ellis was concerned that although the original scope was written by lawyers it was “not intended to be judicially enforceable”. Judge Ellis questioned whether the Special Counsel has authority to make the scope of the investigation whatever he or she wants. He said:
What we don’t want in this country is we don’t want anyone with unfettered power. We don’t want federal judges with unfettered power. We don’t want elected officials with unfettered power. We don’t want anybody, including the president of the United States, nobody to have unfettered power. So it’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me that the special prosecutor has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.
3. Why is the Manafort case being prosecuted by the Special Counsel?
Manafort’s attorneys made the point that this case did not arise from the Mueller investigation. This case predates the Mueller investigation. Manafort’s attorneys argue that Mueller’s investigation of the alleged crime by Mr. Manafort in 2007 was illegal because it violated the “narrow jurisdiction on the special counsel”. This is an example of the unfettered power that the Special Counsel regulations were designed to prevent. If Mueller’s investigation was illegal then prosecuting this case becomes difficult if not impossible. Judge Ellis asks,
Let’s assume for a moment your argument that this delegation is in some way illegal. Why isn’t the right result simply to give to the Eastern District of Virginia’s U.S. Attorney’s Office — give it back to them and let them prosecute this indictment? Why isn’t that the right result?
MR. DOWNING: Well, the right result may be for the Department of Justice to finish the investigation they had started and make a determination as to whether or not to charge Mr. Manafort. But if, in fact, this order is defective, then Mr. Mueller did not have the authority of the U.S. Attorney to conduct a grand jury investigation, to get search warrants, or to return and sign an indictment.
Like many other IT guys and gals, I was never sold on the original explanation of the DNC hack. There were so many loose ends.
- Why did the Russians hack the DNC servers? All of the embarrassing Clinton emails came from the Podesta emails that were acquired prior to the DNC Hack. It was the Podesta emails the Russians were using to taunt Trump and Clinton surrogates in London in May 2016. Yet most people think Ms. Wasserman Schultz was fired because of the DNC Hack. The DNC had plenty of reasons to fire Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The two biggest reasons were the way the DNC treated the Sanders campaign and the proportion of donations collected by the DNC given to the Clinton campaign. Obviously, the bad relations between the DNC and the Sanders campaign had nothing to do with the Russians. If the Russians hacked the servers, why disclose the hack via Wikileaks so quickly? It was so out of character! It is almost as if the Russians hacked the DNC servers as a favor to the DNC.
- What was Crowdstrike doing during the DNC Hack? In a previous post, I remarked that Crowdstrike’s actions reminded me of a Lifelock commercial. I said, “If Crowdstrike knew the DNC was hacked in 2015 and information was transmitted back to Russia, why did they install a security monitor in May 2016? Why did they wait until June to actually fix the problem?”
If the DNC proceeds with the lawsuit there are two things I would like to find out.
1. Was Either Crowdstrike Or Fusion GPS One Of The Private Contractors Who Ran Unsupervised FISA-702 Queries In Early 2016?
The rumor is that Fusion GPS was the private contractor who ran unsupervised FISA-702 queries that resulted in the first FISA abuse of 2016. As I said in a previous post:
By April 18, 2016, the FBI they knew that their FISA-702 “Queries” irregularities had triggered a full Compliance Audit by the NSA. This would lead NSA to admit a non-compliance issue to the FISA court on October 26, 2016.
Most of the FISA-702 “Queries” irregularities occurred before April 2016. This was a really big FISA abuse that happened just days before the DNC Hack. I think the FBI and the private contractor took the risk because they did not think they would get caught. This would explain the arrogance that was displayed later in 2016 when the FISA court would be further abused with the Trump dossier. Considering the abuse the FISA court has taken, I wonder if they would be willing to disclose the name of the contractor if that contractor was found to be collecting information that could be used against political opponents.
- Did the private contractor have a relationship with the Democratic party?
- Was this unsupervised access to raw FISA data used to spy on political opponents?
- Was this unsupervised access to raw FISA data used to spy on the Sanders campaign or the DNC?
- Were they looking for previously unknown classified or top secret Clinton emails from her server that were not part of the emails she turned over?
2. What Was Crowdstrike Doing In May 2016?
This is a question that near and dear to old IT guys. In my world, if our systems are hacked on April 29th them my job is to have them fixed by April 30th. The idea that Crowdstrike did not fix the problem until June 10th is shocking. Obviously, this was a lousy plan. Why let your systems be hacked for over 30 days? What did they learn that was so important?
The self-destructive tendencies of the Justice Department are amazing. The alleged FISA abuses left the integrity of the FBI in tatters. The FBI is desperately trying to rebuild the public’s confidence and their best idea is a no-knock raid on President Trump’s personal attorney. Wow! Maybe the FBI will find something that justifies this unusual action but this is a really, big risk. This action is so weird that it has now become extremely unlikely that President Trump will sit down with special counsel Robert Mueller. Was that part of the plan? This type of justice is not only blind but deaf and dumb. The FBI is now in the unenviable position of defending their actions to an increasingly skeptical public. For a group that has become so dependent on public shaming and plea bargains to attain their idea of justice, it will be difficult for the FBI to convince the public that this time it is different. Really, this time they are going to follow the law? Maybe it is a good time “we” clean house in the Department of Justice.
Cleaning Up The Department of Justice
The best case scenario is that the combination of the Inspector General’s report and an internal investigation by Department of Justice will be sufficient to restore the integrity to the department. After the no-knock raid, I have begun to believe “we” need to do something more severe and sooner. Maybe some public shaming from the oversight committee. I am sure there are redacted documents that are far more interesting with the redactions removed. Figuratively speaking, I would not be surprised that these actions will leave the Justice Department in ashes. From the ashes maybe we can leave the next generation a less corrupt justice system.
I think I like this tradition better without the pie to the face but everyone had fun!
I got a new Samsung 9 recently. I transferred all of my applications to the new phone but never got around to turning on my notifications. Now I am not sure if I ever will. Naturally, my favorite feature on the new phone is the AR Emoji.
It looks like the Nikolaus Cruz who left the Youtube comment last September has a Google ID. Since this person looks like they used their actual name, I cannot help but wonder if this person filled out their personal information, too. Maybe subconsciously this Nikolaus Cruz was hoping the FBI would find him before he succeeded in becoming a “professional school shooter”. Since we are second guessing the FBI actions, did the FBI ask Google for help identifying this user?
I guess that Carter Page’s identity as an undercover FBI employee is the classified information that the Democrats are trying to hide from the #FisaMemo. Too bad that the NY Times revealed his secret identity in April of 2017.
At about the same time the FISA warrant was authorized to surveil Carter Page, someone in the FBI or DOJ leaked information about a FISA warrant in connection with the investigation of Russian bank activity between the server in Trump Tower. Since the FBI reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails just 11 days before the 2016 election, this leak looks like an “insurance policy” to protect the FBI’s reputation by making sure that Mr. Trump did not win the election.
I was tempted to get Tyson’s pre-seasoned chicken wings for our Super Bowl meal but these crispy oven baked buffalo wings were so good and easy. Some times pre-seasoned wings have so much sauce that it makes it hard to enjoy the wings. I found a five pound bag of frozen, plain wings on sale this week. So I opted for a little bit more work. I used half of the bag, 13 wings, for two people. It took about an hour and a half to prepare using the recipe from RecipeTins Eats.
Democrats complained that the memo:
- Impacted national security
- Attacked the institutions of the Department of Justice and the FBI
- Destroyed the trust with intelligence agencies
I read the FISA memo and did not see where it impacted national security or attacked the Department of Justice and the FBI as institutions. Mr. Comey needs to look no farther than himself to find someone who leaked and destroyed trust with intelligence agencies. A broader condemnation can be made of the intelligence agencies for the numerous leaks made in October, November, and December of 2016. This is a period Mr. Comey was in charge of the FBI. Due to the information that was leaked, people in the DOJ and FBI involved with the investigation are the likely leakers. Although these leaks are serious issues, the abuses described in the memo are specific to certain individuals in the DOJ and FBI who intentionally misled the FISA court in October of 2016.
The Tyranny of Good Intentions
History reminds us that this is not the first time prosecutors have abused their postion for what they perceive is the common good. Here is a quote from a book published in 2000, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
When a prosecutor is intent on a frame-up or the Justice Department on a cover-up, not even money and exposure can stop the process. In high-profile cases, clever prosecutors protect themselves by first convicting their victims in the media. With the public aroused against the victim, the prosecutor has a free hand.