Federal Indictment of Donald Trump

#6,676
#6,676
davethevol said:
Bill Barr says a judge was 'wrong' to rule to appoint a special master in the Mar-a-Lago investigation as Trump requested, and urges the government to appeal the decision

Why is the former AG talking about this, especially with regards to his former boss? Barr is a deep state sleazebag.
Click to expand...

Trump embarrassed Barr and he's now gone full-Bolton, similarly disgracing himself.

Barr's greatest failing was not appointing Durham soon after the March 2019 release of the report bearing the figurehead Mueller's name, instead of waiting until Dec. 2020. He knew and accurately stated shortly after the report that the DOJ/FBI knew they had nothing in Jan 2017, well before Mueller's May 2017 appointment. Instead of closing the investigation in light of exculpatory evidence, they made the conscious decision to ignore it and construct a case from whole cloth.

Igor Danchenko, source for the Steele dossier, has been indicted by Durham for lying to the FBI. His legal team have taken the strategy that DOJ/FBI knew he was lying but that it was immaterial to DOJ/FBI decision to proceed:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
".....Perhaps the biggest problem for Durham is that in January 2017, Danchenko provided the FBI with a synopsis of an Aug. 18, 2016, email he wrote Millian, as well as a copy of an Aug. 24, 2016, email from Danchenko to a journalist. Millian ignored Danchenko’s outreach and the emails make it clear that Millian could not have been a dossier source as the timelines do not match. For instance, Steele had attributed stories to Millian before Danchenko had even emailed Millian, making it impossible that Millian was a source.

This is crucial, as Millian is cited by Steele as the source for the claim that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of cooperation” between Trump and the Kremlin, that Russia passed hacked DNC emails to Wikileaks, as well as for the infamous pee tape story.

Put simply, by Jan. 25, 2017, the FBI knew that the dossier’s major allegations were fabrications. Yet, instead of shutting down their investigation and withdrawing their FISA warrant on Trump 2016 presidential campaign adviser Carter Page—a warrant that had been obtained on the basis of the dossier—the FBI forged on and even escalated their investigation.

Even worse, when Trump asked then-FBI director James Comey at a Jan. 27, 2017, dinner to investigate the dossier, Comey advised against doing this, claiming that any such investigation could be seen as Trump being investigated personally. We now know that, at the time of the dinner, the FBI had already investigated the dossier and had found it to be false.

Former UK intelligence officer Christopher Steele in London, UK, on July 24, 2020. (Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images)
Had Comey told Trump the truth on Jan. 27, 2017, the course of history could have been very different. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn would likely not have been fired. There would have been no Mueller investigation. Trump would not have had his hands tied during the first three years of his administration. He may even have been able to reach an accommodation with Russia, which the Russia investigation effectively prevented him from even trying to do.

But Comey did not stop there. In March 2017, Comey told Congress that the Trump campaign was under investigation for possible collusion with Moscow. Again, he did so knowing that the case against Trump had collapsed during the Jan. 2017 Danchenko interview.

As Attorney General Bill Barr put it in a December 2019 interview: “What was the agenda after the election? They kept on pressing ahead after their case collapsed. This is the president of the United States.”

The fact that the FBI continued and even escalated their investigation despite knowing that the dossier was fabricated has not escaped the attention of Danchenko’s attorneys. In order to be convicted of lying to the FBI, Durham not only needs to show that Danchenko lied, but also that his lies were material.

A crest of the Federal Bureau of Investigation inside the J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building in Washington, DC, on Aug. 3, 2007. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)
The definition of materiality is that the lie was “capable of influencing” the FBI. However, the facts appear to show that the FBI was not capable of being influenced, regardless of what Danchenko told them.

Aside from providing the above-mentioned emails, Danchenko also told investigators that other, non-Millian-related stories in the dossier were based on gossip, rumors, and bar talk made in jest. Again, had Danchenko been capable of influencing the FBI, they would have shut down their investigation based on the spurious provenance of the allegations against Trump.

Matters are further complicated for Durham by a new revelation with respect to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. According to Danchenko’s attorneys, who have access to many documents not seen by the public, Mueller “ultimately completed” the investigation into the Steele dossier “in or about November 2017.” No further information is provided on Mueller’s investigation of the dossier, which he only mentions in passing in his 448-page report.

The revelation stands in stark contrast to Mueller’s congressional testimony in July 2019, when he claimed that the Steele dossier was not in his purview as it was an FBI issue. New Danchenko Court Filing Shows That FBI Knew in January 2017 That Steele Dossier Was Fabricated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Trump states he took files related to the Clinton email scandal and the series of Russia hoax investigations, files that illuminate the corruption of the agencies and planned to use them as proof of his innocence. Recall that it was the equally seditious John Brennan/CIA who alerted the Obama WH, DOJ and FBI in September 2016 that:

“Per FBI verbal request, CIA provides the below examples of information the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE fusion cell has gleaned to date," the memo continued. "“An exchange [REDACTED] discussing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning US presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering US elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server." DNI declassifies Brennan notes, CIA memo on Hillary Clinton 'stirring up' scandal between Trump, Russia

- thus the Clinton email files would be centrally material to his defense against the Russia hoax investigations. Trump probably should have considered approaching Durham with the information instead of holding it at MAL.

Anyhow, Barr should have assigned Durham in early/mid-2019 when Grenell and Ratcliffe were DNI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caculator and InVOLuntary
#6,677
#6,677
REVEALED: Brave Whistleblowers are Exposing how the Nakedly Political FBI IS out to get Trump - now read TOM LEONARD's Damning Dossier on the chiefs who are plunging America's once proud Bureau into its gravest crisis ever

Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity.

That's the proud motto of the FBI and for decades it's an image that many people around the world have believed to be entirely deserved.

Hollywood has certainly helped: while it loves to portray the CIA as ruthless and duplicitous, it promotes the FBI - whether defeating the Mob in The Untouchables, serial killers in Silence of the Lambs or Ku Klux Klan murderers in Mississippi Burning - as the dark-suited and tireless champions of law enforcement, even-handed and impartial.

That reputation has been shaken in recent years and it may yet be completely shattered as the bureau faces perhaps the biggest crisis of confidence in its history.

Can the organization that charged mob-handed into Mar-a-Lago to search Donald Trump's Florida home for evidence of classified White House papers possibly be the same outfit that allegedly told its agents to hold off investigating Hunter Biden's notorious laptop for months?

And if they are the same organization - and we now know that of course they are - can they seriously still make that bombastic claim - Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity - which sits below the scales of justice on their seal?

Fidelity, some ask, to whom exactly?

While Republican politicians won't share too many specifics about the whistleblowers to protect their identity, Republican Senator Ron Johnson, Ranking Member on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, told DailyMail.com that the allegations shared with Congress indicate a level of 'corruption' within the FBI and Department of Justice that needs to be 'exposed.'

'The only way to restore credibility to these agencies is if we expose the corruption and hold people accountable.'

Brave whistleblowers are exposing how the nakedly political FBI IS out to get Trump: TOM LEONARD | Daily Mail Online
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#6,681
#6,681
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.

The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

You can read the full ruling here:

File
memorandum opinion.pdf
The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.

As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to force NARA to go get the tapes

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."

That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on Trump's estate. You can read their arguments a decade earlier here:

File
Hearing Transcript.pdf

Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.

The search warrant the FBI enforced sought two types of records: classified materials and records created during the Trump presidency. Trump has been adamant the records he took to Mar-a-Lago were both declassified and deemed personal by him.

Some government lawyers reached out privately to Just the News in recent days questioning the use of the FBI to collect presidential records, citing Jackson's ruling and suggesting it was a civil and not criminal matter where deference to Trump is required by law.

On the classification issue, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.

The Jackson ruling and the declassification powers have left some experts worried the FBI raid was heavy-handed under the current laws.

Kevin Brock, former assistant FBI director for intelligence, told Just the News the bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the FBI manual for agents recommended. "Specificity is important in order to protect fourth amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed to find whatever they can," he told Just the News.

Brock added he did not believe DOJ and FBI had authority to criminalize the retention of presidential records.

The warrant "apparently makes a novel legal assertion that any presidential record kept by a former president is against the law," Brock said. "You have to wonder what the other living former presidents think about that. They have the right and, apparently, clear desire to remain silent."

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch who was on the losing end of the Clinton sock drawer case, said he believes Jackson's ruling could have a profound impact on the coming legal battles over the Trump search.

"The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'" Fitton said.

"The Justice Department previously had told us in response to a question about Bill Clinton: 'Tough luck, it's his.' But they changed their mind for Donald Trump?" he asked. "… The law and court decision suggests that Trump is right. And frankly, based on this analysis, Trump should get every single document they took from him back. It's all personal records."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump team should move heaven and earth to get this in front of Obama appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson/DC.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#6,685
#6,685
NCFisher said:
Old case over audio tapes in Bill Clinton's sock drawer could impact Mar-a-Lago search dispute

When it comes to the National Archives, history has a funny way of repeating itself. And legal experts say a decade-old case over audio tapes that Bill Clinton once kept in his sock drawer may have significant impact over the FBI search of Melania Trump's closet and Donald Trump's personal office.

The case in question is titled Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration and it involved an effort by the conservative watchdog to compel the Archives to forcibly seize hours of audio recordings that Clinton made during his presidency with historian Taylor Branch.

For pop culture, the case is most memorable for the revelation that the 42nd president for a time stored the audio tapes in his sock drawer at the White House. The tapes became the focal point of a 2009 book that Branch wrote.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington D.C. ultimately rejected Judicial Watch's suit by concluding there was no provision in the Presidential Records Act to force the National Archives to seize records from a former president.

But Jackson's ruling — along with the Justice Department's arguments that preceded it — made some other sweeping declarations that have more direct relevance to the FBI's decision to seize handwritten notes and files Trump took with him to Mar-a-Lago. The most relevant is that a president's discretion on what are personal vs. official records is far-reaching and solely his, as is his ability to declassify or destroy records at will.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President's term and in his sole discretion," Jackson wrote in her March 2012 decision, which was never appealed.

"Since the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records," she added.

You can read the full ruling here:

File
memorandum opinion.pdf
The judge noted a president could destroy any record he wanted during his tenure and his only responsibility was to inform the Archives.

As to whether records a president concluded were personal can be forcibly seized after he leaves office, the court concluded it was unreasonable to force NARA to go get the tapes

"Because the audiotapes are not physically in the government's possession, defendant submits that it would be required to seize them directly from President Clinton in order to assume custody and control over them," Jackson noted. "Defendant considers this to be an 'extraordinary request' that is unfounded, contrary to the PRA's express terms, and contrary to traditional principles of administrative law. The Court agrees."

That defendant was the same Justice Department that authorized the raid on Trump's estate. You can read their arguments a decade earlier here:

File
Hearing Transcript.pdf

Jackson also concluded that a decision to challenge a president's decision lies solely with the National Archives and can't be reviewed by a court. If the Archives wants to challenge a decision, that agency and the attorney general can initiate an enforcement mechanism under the law, but it is a civil procedure and has no criminal penalty, she noted.

The search warrant the FBI enforced sought two types of records: classified materials and records created during the Trump presidency. Trump has been adamant the records he took to Mar-a-Lago were both declassified and deemed personal by him.

Some government lawyers reached out privately to Just the News in recent days questioning the use of the FBI to collect presidential records, citing Jackson's ruling and suggesting it was a civil and not criminal matter where deference to Trump is required by law.

On the classification issue, both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama signed executive orders — which remain in force to this day — declaring that presidents have sweeping authority to declassify secrets and do not have to follow the mandatory declassification procedures all other government officials do.

The Jackson ruling and the declassification powers have left some experts worried the FBI raid was heavy-handed under the current laws.

Kevin Brock, former assistant FBI director for intelligence, told Just the News the bureau's search warrant was overly broad and went beyond what the FBI manual for agents recommended. "Specificity is important in order to protect fourth amendment rights from exuberant government overreach designed to find whatever they can," he told Just the News.

Brock added he did not believe DOJ and FBI had authority to criminalize the retention of presidential records.

The warrant "apparently makes a novel legal assertion that any presidential record kept by a former president is against the law," Brock said. "You have to wonder what the other living former presidents think about that. They have the right and, apparently, clear desire to remain silent."

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch who was on the losing end of the Clinton sock drawer case, said he believes Jackson's ruling could have a profound impact on the coming legal battles over the Trump search.

"The government, the lawyer for the Archives, said, 'You know what? If documents are in the former President's hands, where they're presumptively personal, we just, you know, we presume they're personal,'" Fitton said.

"The Justice Department previously had told us in response to a question about Bill Clinton: 'Tough luck, it's his.' But they changed their mind for Donald Trump?" he asked. "… The law and court decision suggests that Trump is right. And frankly, based on this analysis, Trump should get every single document they took from him back. It's all personal records."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trump team should move heaven and earth to get this in front of Obama appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson/DC.
Click to expand...

"Could affect" ??????

So could gravity.
 
#6,686
#6,686
lawgator1 said:
"Could affect" ??????

So could gravity.
Click to expand...

Okay - how could gravity affect the case?

It's as though you thought to yourself "I could recognize Jackson's decision as standing case law with direct correlation to Trump's case, admitting much of what has been asserted by the left is TDS navel-gazing. Or, I could make an inane, unresponsive drive-by comment that contributes nothing."

"I'm going with B."
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Sandman 423
#6,693
#6,693
Orangeburst said:
You think this is funny?

I could care less about Lindell..but you got 100M people that are questioning WTH is going on with this DOJ..
That is going down the hole of even if this Republic still exists.
Click to expand...
This is not going to turn out well. They are projecting what they plan to do. They will attempt to maintain control of the government
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top