Why is it important to understand the duality of purpose for the appointment of the special counsel run by the figure-head (in name only) of Robert Mueller?…

…Because from the outset the seventeen Lawfare lawyers who formed the resistance unit operation took control over the DOJ.

That was a large purpose of their installation.  The Mueller resistance unit controlled everything, including every impediment to congress.

Despite the fact they should have been aware of this, many individual Senators and congressional representatives now claim they had no idea of this purpose.  Setting aside their willful blindness; all that stuff is in the rear-view and only leads to anger in a debate that needs to look forward; the issue now becomes putting indisputable evidence, an actionable trigger, in front of them and forcing public confrontation.  Action.  Nothing else matters; drive action.

Committee chairman Lindsay Graham said today on Twitter he is open to having Robert Mueller appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. [FYI Chuck Grassley is a member]  While there is no reason to put any scintilla of projected altruism into the position of Senator tick-tock Graham, there’s more behind that statement than a mere WaPo op-ed.  [Read between the lines – Nudge/Nudge – Wink/Wink].

The senator from South Carolina might be attempting to kick the proverbial can; it matters not.  What matters is a public and deliberately painful action that forces a reckoning.

(more…)

One of the biggest mistakes many people have made in their evaluation of Rod Rosenstein is separating him from the Special Counsel investigation run by Robert Mueller’s team of resistance lawyers. The reality is Rosenstein was always a willing active participant and co-dependent enabler.  [Thread Here]

Support for this foundational understanding comes forward yesterday as the former Deputy Attorney General showcases his support for an op-ed presumably written by Robert Mueller.

[Op-Ed Here]

[*Authorship is tenuous at best, and more likely written by Weissmann or Zelby (Lawfare) on behalf of Mueller] But for now, focus on Rosenstein.

Notice how Rosenstein positions his current advocacy as part of the Mueller team. This is critical; and unfortunately everyone keeps missing it. Rosenstein did the same thing in his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

When you stand back it becomes clear, Rosenstein viewed his role with the special counsel as participatory. He was Deputy AG not only as DAG, but also there as a functionary – to facilitate the needs of the special counsel investigation.

This outlook, specifically Rosenstein’s internal definition of his role and responsibility, is why the special counsel was able to essentially take over Main Justice during the two year investigation. Rosenstein took NO ACTION that was not approved by his teammates.

This becomes key.

(more…)

Mitt Romney does his Mitt Romney thing again today as he tweets about President Trump commuting the sentence of Roger Stone:

Rather than allow myself to be drawn into unhealthy toxic anger; allow me to shift the focus for a moment to drive home the point that up to the moment that Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, all national politics was controlled club activity.

It was in the aftermath of Mitt Romney taking a dive in 2012 when I first decided to really drill down on the club networks and figure out their strategies. Not esoteric analysis of what the political ideology is; but rather, a deep, very deep, focus into the network of how they actually function and what they physically do to keep hidden. Once you see the strings on the marionettes you can never go back to a time when you did not see them.

George Carlin was right, smart man, it’s a big club and we we’re not in it… until Trump.

The elevation of a semi-coherent and cognitively challenged vessel named Joe Biden should also drive home the point that both political wings of the UniParty bird, are ultimately a Potemkin village to disguise a network of powerful interests.

(more…)

Earlier today Sidney Powell filed a new supplemental brief (#2) [pdf here] in support of the unopposed motion to dismiss.  The supplement covers the defense position on the newly released information from USAO Jeff Jensen which includes: notes taken by Tash Guahar at a January 25, 2017 briefing; the FBI work product that was an outcome of that briefing; and later notes by acting DAG Dana Boente.

The notes and FBI briefing summary are also on pdf here and embedded below.  It’s a lot of granular information to consider – so it’s worth beginning with the filing by Sidney Powell to see how the evidence released pertains to the current status of the case.

On January 25, 2017, the day after Flynn was interviewed by FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Agent Joe Pientka (he’s the redacted name per his status under an ongoing protective order) the DOJ and FBI group assembled to discuss the Flynn interview and what steps they would take to frame Michael Flynn as part of their ongoing resistance operation.

Tashina Guahar from the DOJ-National Security Division was taking the notes.

Notes of then Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar, reveal a January 25, 2017, meeting of ten officials including FBI General Counsel James Baker, Bill Priestap, Agent Peter Strzok, and [redacted]; from the National Security Division of DOJ: Mary McCord, George ZT, and STU; from the Office of the Deputy AG: Tash, Scott [Schools], and [redacted].

Additionally, when reviewing the notes and FBI briefing summary it’s worth remembering the release only covers the information pertinent to Michael Flynn; hence the non-Flynn material is redacted (even though some of the non-Flynn material we previously found). [Thanks to Techno Fog for that reminder]

One of the key aspects to the notes taken by Tashina Guahar relates to the group discussion of their own leaking of information to the media, which they worried had now alerted the Trump administration to the nature of their intelligence surveillance.

The resistance group’s media leaks, intended to undermine the Trump administration, “changed the dynamic” by informing the White House that FBI agents were intercepting communication from White House officials.

(more…)

The DC circuit court has requested a response from Michael Flynn’s counsel (and/or DOJ), by July 20th, regarding the petition filed by Judge Emmet Sullivan for a full panel en banc review of the mandamus order.  The prior mandamus order required Sullivan to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss the case. [pdf here]

Notably the court is not permitting a re-response from Sullivan (implying they have enough information) only a brief reply from Sidney Powell, and inviting a brief response from the DOJ as appropriate.  In the interim the writ of mandamus (Rao order) is stayed until the court decides whether to grant the en banc review.

In short: •Petition response (from Powell and/or DOJ) requested by July 20th. •No counter petition allowed. •Judge Rao mandamus order stayed. •Court *may* consider (vote on) en banc review pending petition response.

Everything is disconnected until somebody connects it.

On February 9, 2018, the DOJ released a batch of captured text messages between Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Mark Warner and the lawyer for Christopher Steele, Adam Waldman.

At the time the texts were released the media narrative surrounded the top-line story that Senator Warner was having back channel discussions to communicate with the author of the now famous Trump dossier, Chris Steele. However, no-one seemed to wonder why these messages were captured, and even more curiously why they were released.

Immediately following the release, SSCI member Marco Rubio, the current acting chairman of the same committee, rushed to defend the covert communication of Vice-Chair Warner.  According to Rubio the vice-chair did previously inform the committee of his intent to contact Steele.  The media quickly used Rubio’s defense to dismiss the controversy.  Nothing to see here… nothing to see here… and that was that.

Except it wasn’t.

Not even close.

(more…)

“Walk toward the fire. Don’t worry about what they call you. All those things are said against you because they want to stop you in your tracks. But if you keep going, you’re sending a message to people who are rooting for you, who are agreeing with you. The message is that they can do it, too.”

~ Andrew Breitbart

Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

(more…)

Judge Emmet Sullivan is refusing to accept the three-judge appeals court ruling – which granted a writ of mandamus and instructed Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case per the DOJ and Flynn defense unopposed motion. Today Judge Sullivan is asking the Full DC Circuit Court panel to conduct an en banc rehearing of the issues. [pdf here]

There is no guarantee the full DC Circuit will agree to the en banc request. However, given the nature of the court, it should be anticipated. What really appears to be the undiscussed background is an effort to keep dragging this issue out as long as possible. This is beyond judicial activism running amok, we have now entered the realm of judicial weaponization.

The Lawfare resistance was strongly advocating for this judicial approach. However, what we can infer from the need for Sullivan to trigger the en banc request is that no individual circuit court judge was going to do it independently (sua sponte) which was an option.

It appears Sullivan waited to see if one of them would; then, after a period of time where he identified no circuit judge would independently put himself/herself into the spotlight, Sullivan makes the en banc request himself.  The panel will likely accept the request.

Sullivan’s en banc petition essentially says his requests to have an outside amicus brief the court -on all the reasons not to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss- as commonplace; and he decries the DC appeals court mandamus decision as “a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”  [I think he’s stalling.]

Here’s the full filing outlining the position of Judge Sullivan:

(more…)

Former Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell discusses the period during the presidential transition period where President Obama’s white house team was coordinating intelligence efforts to research and unmask incoming officials.

(more…)