“Yes, but they are fighting in good faith…”
In his scathing indictment of the ACLU (discussed here) for giving the Justice Department a partisan pass despite the dubious legality of its raid on Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Alan Dershowitz wrote,
“David Cole, who identifies himself as the ACLU Legal Director, said the organization relies on the good faith of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the judge who issued the warrant to assure all Americans that this raid on a lawyer’s office, is “a sign that the rule of law is alive.”
Here are the recent performances of key figures among that group that is getting the ACLU’s trust:
- Book-peddling, Trump-stalking James Comey says in his forthcoming book that he found evidence that “would undoubtedly have been used by political opponents to cast serious doubt on the attorney general’s independence in connection with the Clinton investigation,” and also faulted Attorney General Lynch’s decision to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a “matter.”
Loretta Lynch responded to the accusation and criticism with her own statement that concluded,
“…I have known James Comey almost 30 years. Throughout his time as Director we spoke regularly about some of the most sensitive issues in law enforcement and national security. If he had any concerns regarding the email investigation, classified or not, he had ample opportunities to raise them with me both privately and in meetings. He never did.”
- Fired acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe is out of a job because the independent Justice Department Inspector General found that he had lied on multiple occasions, his report concluding in one of the instances, regarding leaks to the news media about the Clinton Foundation…
“While the only direct evidence regarding this McCabe-Comey conversation were the recollections of the two participants, there is considerable circumstantial evidence and we concluded that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supported Comey’s version of the conversation.”
In response, McCabe directed his counsel to write Congress that
“It is undisputed that Mr. McCabe was one of three senior FBI officials authorized to share information with the media, including on sensitive investigative matters . . . He chose to exercise that authority in October 2016, during one of the most turbulent periods in the history of the bureau, with the knowledge of Director Comey and other senior members of FBI management . . .Mr. McCabe’s recollection of discussions he had with Director Comey about this issue is extremely clear; Director Comey’s recollection is, by his own acknowledgment, not at all clear. And yet two of the lack of candor allegations are based on Director Comey’s admittedly vague and uncertain recollection of those discussions.”
and…
- After McCabe was fired but before Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz released his damning report laying out why he was fired, McCabe had the gall to set up a GoFundMe page to allow anti-Trump zealots to translate their hatred into McCabe’s cash on the deceptive theory that the firing had cost him his pension. (It hadn’t.) The crowd-funding scheme brought in more than a half million dollars.
McCabe then closed the site before the release of the report.
Nice.
After giving money to McCabe’s pity fund, cash that could be used to save the whales (though it is true that whales don’t hate President Trump, at least I don’t think they do) the gullible donors then discovered that McCabe had not been fired by mean old Jeff Sessions as political pay-back for hounding the President, but because he misled investigators on four occasions. McCabe lied, the IG made clear, to protect himself and nobody else. Horowitz wrote,
“[W]e concluded that McCabe’s decision to confirm the existence of the [Clinton Foundation] investigation through an anonymously sourced quote, recounting the content of a phone call with a senior department official in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of department leadership, was clearly not within the public interest exception.”
So let’s review, shall we? Lynch says Comey lied. McCabe says Comey lied. Comey says that Lynch abused her authority. Comey and the IG says that McCabe lied.
Meanwhile, McCabe used crowd-funding to enrich himself under false pretenses.
And Jonathan Turley points out that Michael Flynn is being indicted for violating a law McCabe apparently violated himself, but worse:
[McCabe] showed no contrition and allegedly falsely implicated his superior in the improper leaking of information to the media….Flynn was indicted for criminal false statements on less. He now faces a prison stint after pleading guilty to a single false statement about a meeting with Russian diplomats during the Trump presidential transition period. While Flynn did not deny the meeting, which was entirely legal, he denied discussing sanctions with the Russians. Mueller charged him with lying or misleading federal investigators under 18 U.S.C. 1001. He did so even though investigators working under former FBI Director James Comey reportedly had concluded that Flynn did not intend to lie and should not be charged criminally for the omission.
McCabe has used the Flynn defense that he was “confused and distracted” but unlike Flynn it appears (thus far) to have worked.
Prof. Turley wonders why McCabe hasn’t been criminally charged. Don’t worry, professor! The ACLU assures us that the FBI and the Justice Department operates in good faith, and that “the rule of law is alive.”
______________________
Sources: Res Ipsa Loquitur 1, 2
Ethics Alarms 
The Justice Department didn’t conduct the raid; they referred the issue to the U.S. Atrorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, who had to get approval from a federal judge. Wouldn’t those be the people to discredit here?.
Oh, I’ll stick with Justice for now.
Hah, hah, hah! The SDNY is not part of the Justice Department! That’s a good one! Certainly wasn’t as far a Preet Baraha was concerned. You’re hilarious, Chris. I don’t know whether your picture is there in the dictionary next to the definition of “pedantic” or “stupid.”
SDNY is part of the Morals and Hubris Department. I forgot.
Up here we sometimes call it the SOVEREIGN District of New York due to the hubris and tendency of the personnel there to act like they are a cut above even the rest of the Federal court system.
“The Justice Department didn’t conduct the raid; they referred the issue to the U.S. Atrorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, who had to get approval from a federal judge.”
The US Attorney’s office is part of the Justice Department, regardless of which district the office is in, and never in the history of ever has a judge ever been referred to as having conducted the raid as a result of signing off on the warrant. The Justice department conducted the raid.
I’m aware it’s part of the Justice Department. It isn’t the same part that investigated Clinton or did any of the other stuff Jack mentions, which is the issue.
And I didn’t say the judge “conducted” the raid, I said he approved the warrant. The SDNY didn’t need to convince you or I that the raid was justified, they needed to convince a judge, and they did. This is the FISA warrant argument all over again; in both cases you’re arguing that the judge’s approval is irrelevant to our judgment of whether or not the actions were probably justified, but it isn’t irrelevant at all.
The FISA warrant is especially stupid of you to bring up because there are indications that the judge might not have approved it had the agents requesting it not mischaracterized the source.
And that’s really the crux of this: The judge’s approval is VERY relevant, if it didn’t exist, my reaction would be VERY different. But the judge’s approval is supposed to be based on certain requisite information, and using recent history as a guide, I don’t see why anyone would assume that the FBI approached the process in good faith.
I don’t know if the FBI conducted their investigation properly, I don’t know if they actually honestly presented their findings to the judge, and I’m not convinced that individual jurists are able to do their job properly on the topic of Donald Trump because the last three years has been such a colossal gong show. I mean…. Really…. Where’d this sudden faith in the system come from on your part? And what feeds it?
The left, which cut their teeth defying the Man, have become the Man, and found that it is Good to be the Man.
The FISA warrant is especially stupid of you to bring up because there are indications that the judge might not have approved it had the agents requesting it not mischaracterized the source.
No, there aren’t, and there is no evidence that the agents mischaracterized the source at all. The agents told the judge that the source was likely compiled for the purpose of discrediting Trump. The judge approved it anyway. There is no evidence that the FBI knew exactly who paid for the dossier–even Steele didn’t know who was paying him–and the funding didn’t even matter, because the source was Steele, and he was believed to be credible. But they did say that the dossier was likely funded by an anti-Trump party, and that. didn’t. matter. If the judge thought that didn’t matter but somehow would find the fact that it was paid for by the Clinton campaign disqualifying, then the judge is a complete idiot with no consistent standards.
I mean…. We agree on most of that, except I think you underestimate how much judges hate being fed false information, even when the person supplying that information doesn’t know they’re doing so. My point was more that the judges only see what’s in front of them, that the FBI showed that judge what they wanted to, and that I have something between very little and no benefit left in my doubts for this iteration of the FBI.
What information were they fed that was false? That the dossier was funded by someone with an anti-Trump bias was true.
Chris, I genuinely hope you never say something quite that stupid to a judge. I really do. You can spin like a top here all you want, but no judge on Earth would agree that the source of those documents was deeply connected to the Clinton campaign was anything but materially important.
The mere fact that they were unsubstantiated at the time (and STILL are to this day) means that the FBI was lying by omission.
My understanding is that FISA rules require proof, being secret and all, and that was NOT acquired about the dossier.
Saying anythings different is simply partisan bullshit. The left would not (and does not) get treated this way… yet.
Wait until this becomes expected practice, and the New Right sees it as ‘how the game is played.’ Guess who holds the FISA reins on such in 2020, and likely in 2024?
We still do not know 1) exactly which parts of the dossier were presented to the judge or 2) exactly which parts of the dossier have been confirmed by the government. Until the unredacted warrant application is released we may never know. But I find it unlikely that the DOJ presented unverified information to the judge as having been proven, or that the judge approved a warrant based on unverified information.
“…exactly which parts of the dossier have been confirmed by the government. ”
Comey said it himself. The full force of the American Federal Government was used to wiretap a political candidate for POTUS, and then to undermine a duly elected POTUS, and you are minimizing the threat to our Republic. It does not MATTER if there is a grain of truth (like the definition of the word ‘is’) since it was unverified information, and against the FISA rules. The Obama Administration submitted this to the FISA court four times (and has admitted that without the false dossier would never have gotten the warrant) Try substituting ‘Trump’ for ‘Obama’ and see if you feel the same way.
You are spinning in a very hypocritical way.
Comey said it himself. The full force of the American Federal Government was used to wiretap a political candidate for POTUS, and then to undermine a duly elected POTUS, and you are minimizing the threat to our Republic.
What in God’s name are you talking about? Comey never said any of that, and Trump was never wiretapped.
It does not MATTER if there is a grain of truth (like the definition of the word ‘is’) since it was unverified information, and against the FISA rules
It’s like you didn’t even read my comment at all. Go back and read it again. I just said that you do not know what parts of the dossier were presented or what parts were verified. Unless you have evidence the rest of us haven’t seen, you are simply making things up when you say the FISA warrant was based on unverified information.
The Obama Administration submitted this to the FISA court four times (and has admitted that without the false dossier would never have gotten the warrant)
No, they have not said that. You are getting your news from some alternate dimension.
You are spinning in a very hypocritical way.
Chris, you deny headline stories as if they never happened. Knew I never should have engaged you: you make shit up and lie as a reflex.
Chris has proven himself a smug hypocritical party hack, not interested in actual discussion, debate, or fair treatment. He is unethical, as as such I will not dignify his responses any further. Do not feed the trolls.
Welcome to the club.
slick, the headlines you are referring to are from dishonest sources and have been debunked. I stand by my evaluation of the false claims you made in your comment.
Hmmm… so they indict based on fake news these days? Seems there are criminal referrals based on my ‘fake headlines’
No, I will not engage you on this topic: you cite the New York Times, and we know where they stand and how they lie. We will not agree to sources, so I will rely on the trail documents of Comey, when they try him.
It is coming.
What are you talking about? No one has been indicted for wiretapping Trump, as there is no evidence that Trump was wiretapped. No one has been indicted for lying on the FISA application, because there is no evidence anyone lied on the FISA application.
And Jack cites the New York Times.
So your stance really is that the judge did not see “the dossier was funded by someone with an anti-Trump bias” as materially important, but would obviously see “the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign” as materially important.
Can you explain why?
I didn’t say that the bias disclosure was unimportant, I said it was different. Kind of along the same bent as someone admitting they just axe-murdered a person, but leaving out that they’d raped the corpse.
HT,
To take your position I’d have to believe that something like the following occurred:
Agent Craigbert: Hey, Agent Changowitz, what should we put on this FISA application under “Source of information?”
Agent Changowitz: Christopher Steele, you idiot.
Craigbert: No, I mean source of funding.
Changowitz: Definitely don’t mention that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign. Just say it was someone working against Trump to make sure he doesn’t win in November.
Craigbert: What’s the difference?
Changowitz: Craigbert, you dummy, there’s a huge difference between saying that Clinton funded it and saying someone who hates Trump funded it. The former will get this thing rubber stamped and the latter will have us thrown out of court on our deep state asses.
Craigbert: I…see. What if the judge asks who funded it?
Changowitz: He won’t.
Craigbert: Ok. But…what if he does?
Changowitz: If he does, we’ll simply lie, Craigbert. You moron. You utter fucking imbecile.
Craigbert: Are you as turned on as I am right now?
Changowitz: No.
*cut to courtroom*
The Honorable Judge Jeffers Jefferton III: What have you got for me today?
Craigbert: We have a *giggle* FISA application for a warrant on *snicker* Carter Page based on a dossier by *audibly breaks into laughter* dossier compiled by a British agent named Christopher Steele.
Jefferton: And who *funded* this dossier?
Craigbert, stage-whispering to Changowitz: He’s got us! Let’s boogie! We’ll start a new life in Mexico!
Changowitz: Er…we don’t know, but we think it was someone trying to discredit Trump before November.
Craigbert: *sweats through his entire suit*
Jefferton: Oh! Well, why didn’t you say so! I have no questions about this at all.
Craigbert: It’s not Clinton—
Changowitz: shutupshutupshutup
Jefferton: Why of course it’s not Clinton! I never even would have assumed that. If it was, I’d have to deny this application. But as long as it’s someone else who hates Trump, I see no problem signing off on this at all.
Craigbert: We did it! We duped the judge!
Jefferton: What’s that now, son?
Changowitz: He said thank you.
Craigbert: I love you.
Changowitz: I know.
*scene*
The above was absurd, yes, but so is the idea that the FBI knew Clinton had funded the dossier but lied and said they merely “speculated” that it was funded by someone opposed to Trump. There is literally no reason to tell this lie. Any jusge’s first assumption would be that the Clinton campaign was likely to be the one behind the funding.
The U.S. Attorney’s offices are part of the Justice Department.
Is the judge who approved the warrant?
Or do federal judges typically just approve anything, even if it has implications for attorney-client privilege?
We must retain our skepticism concerning this raid.
Since the election of Trump, I have seen the brains of otherwise intelligent and competent people liquefy and trickle out their ears in real time.
One of the most interesting symptoms of that liquefaction has been the invention or re-invention of all sorts of professional rules, policies and laws, specifically and discreetly to the detriment of this administration. When something new happens, something that has a burden of proof so high that it has never before been breached…. The Resistance desperately wants that to be the result of an abnormal presidency… But in reality it’s the response that is abnormal… It’s the height of naivete to assume uncritically that this was done properly.
This could be a COTD
It is indeed a Comment of the Day. Right after yours.
Thanks Jack, I have so much more to say on the topic when it gets posted.
I am just waiting for the new right to start cherry picking judges like liberals have for decades. Then start suing the other side just like they have done.
Good job, everybody.
(I am cynical. Also sore. A deer hit my car today and broke it. Tow truck took forever. In the interest of everyone’s sanity I am not commenting further today)
Good luck, buddy. You’ve certainly had some truly impactful things to deal with today. Take car. Good to keep all this noise in perspective.
Ooops. Take car, not take car, but maybe that was more apt. Freudian slip? Hah.
OB, think I should take (a) car? I did, from Enterprise Rental 🙂
Thank for the sentiment.
This is me giving a little bit of the benefit of the doubt here, but I wonder if the reason this raid was conducted was an over-correction from the Clinton debacle, and not specifically a symptom of rabid Trump derangement.
Was the FBI was so thoroughly embarrassed by letting Hillary get away with destruction of evidence that they’ve overcompensated in the extreme, and taken extreme action to preserve the information they were interested in? I mean, questions of legality aside, I wouldn’t put it past Cohen to buy new shredding equipment in response to a subpoena.
Apparently, more records than just Trump’s and Hannity’s were grabbed. Wonder why no other clients of his are not raising hell?
He only has three.