Ex-F.B.I. lawyer to plead guilty to altering email in Russia probe
Talk Pro and Con
Join LibraryThing to post.
1Carnophile
Ex-F.B.I. Lawyer Expected to Plead Guilty in Review of Russia Inquiry
TL, DR: Good news for Trump; bad news for the "muh Russia" conspiracy theorists.
Here’s the basic idea, distilled from various sources (The New York Times is rather vague about the import of all this, as one would expect from an organization whose cherished narrative just had yet another bullet hole punched through it):
People ranging from FBI investigators to Adam Schiff have argued that Carter Page, a former Trump campaign staffer, had contacts with Russia, and that this suggests that Trump was Up To No Good with Russia. In fact, Page was a source that the CIA had used against Russia - a fact that was conveniently omitted when the FBI was seeking warrants to surveil Page on the grounds that he was working for Russia.
And it was omitted at least partly because an FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith altered a key email to hide Page’s serving as an anti-Russia operative. Clinesmith is planning on pleading guilty to altering that email.
TL, DR: Good news for Trump; bad news for the "muh Russia" conspiracy theorists.
Here’s the basic idea, distilled from various sources (The New York Times is rather vague about the import of all this, as one would expect from an organization whose cherished narrative just had yet another bullet hole punched through it):
People ranging from FBI investigators to Adam Schiff have argued that Carter Page, a former Trump campaign staffer, had contacts with Russia, and that this suggests that Trump was Up To No Good with Russia. In fact, Page was a source that the CIA had used against Russia - a fact that was conveniently omitted when the FBI was seeking warrants to surveil Page on the grounds that he was working for Russia.
And it was omitted at least partly because an FBI lawyer named Kevin Clinesmith altered a key email to hide Page’s serving as an anti-Russia operative. Clinesmith is planning on pleading guilty to altering that email.
2Carnophile
By the way, the NYT - surprise! - tries to change the subject, with remarks such as this: "Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials that the president has long alleged." This is of course irrelevant, since there's no reason prosecutors would do so. They're not prosecuting "an investigation" but a particular individual. It's as if someone is charged with murder and the NYT were to write, "Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of general pattern of murder in the US."
In any case the actual question is whether the Russia investigation was begun honestly and with adherence to the procedures that normally are required to justify an investigation. At least as far as Carter Page goes, the answer is No.
In any case the actual question is whether the Russia investigation was begun honestly and with adherence to the procedures that normally are required to justify an investigation. At least as far as Carter Page goes, the answer is No.
3proximity1
And, to add a bit more of this sordid affair's details, this F.B.I. lawyer, mind you, both a sworn "officer of the court" as well as a sworn federal law enforcement officer, conspired with others to tamper with evidence--exculpatory evidence--making something which would reveal the innocent character of a third party, Carter Page, targeted by these conspirators, to appear guilty of having committed a crime.
In the e-mail exchange, the conspirators exchanged texts of both the original, that is, exculpatory version as well as the altered forms, and, in this way, all implicated themselves in a criminal conspiracy the details of which each one held concerning all the others. This was supposed to bind them to loyalty to each other's protection since none of the members could implicate another without at the same time implicating himself or herself.
"Brilliant"! N'est-ce pas?
For the Trump critics here who work so hard to miss the point, these people, the evidence suggests and should be provable in open court, are alleged to have conspired to frame an innocent man, suborning perjury in the process, and allegedly did this all in an effort to place their victim in a position of falsely implicating candidate and, later, president, Donald Trump, in a fictitious series of acts described as "collusion" (not defined in criminal law, by the way) with agents and officials of foreign governments.
And that, in turn, was done to smear and vilify Trump as candidate and president-elect, presenting specious grounds for Trump's impeachment and, it was designed and hoped, his removal from office.
Key participants in this conspiracy are now in and of the Biden presidential campaign, hoping to win the presidency in November's election. Included among them is, of course, Biden himself, who, though unable to give himself a pardon, shall apparently bear the hopes of all the other conspirators for a quick presidential pardon.
Think all this over carefully before marking your ballot in November.
P.S. : Keep all of that in mind, too, as you continue to hear these very same people decry the feared dangers of suppressing the widespread and fraudulent use of mail-in ballots--not to be confused with absentee ballots.
___________________
In the e-mail exchange, the conspirators exchanged texts of both the original, that is, exculpatory version as well as the altered forms, and, in this way, all implicated themselves in a criminal conspiracy the details of which each one held concerning all the others. This was supposed to bind them to loyalty to each other's protection since none of the members could implicate another without at the same time implicating himself or herself.
"Brilliant"! N'est-ce pas?
For the Trump critics here who work so hard to miss the point, these people, the evidence suggests and should be provable in open court, are alleged to have conspired to frame an innocent man, suborning perjury in the process, and allegedly did this all in an effort to place their victim in a position of falsely implicating candidate and, later, president, Donald Trump, in a fictitious series of acts described as "collusion" (not defined in criminal law, by the way) with agents and officials of foreign governments.
And that, in turn, was done to smear and vilify Trump as candidate and president-elect, presenting specious grounds for Trump's impeachment and, it was designed and hoped, his removal from office.
Key participants in this conspiracy are now in and of the Biden presidential campaign, hoping to win the presidency in November's election. Included among them is, of course, Biden himself, who, though unable to give himself a pardon, shall apparently bear the hopes of all the other conspirators for a quick presidential pardon.
Think all this over carefully before marking your ballot in November.
P.S. : Keep all of that in mind, too, as you continue to hear these very same people decry the feared dangers of suppressing the widespread and fraudulent use of mail-in ballots--not to be confused with absentee ballots.
___________________
The Hill | Turley: Despite the guilty plea, Democrats still denounce this 'investigation of investigators' | By Jonathan Turley, opinion contributor — 08/15/20 10:00 AM EDT
" 'Gosh almighty.' Those words from former Vice President Joe Biden sum up plenty about the announced criminal plea by former F.B.I. lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Of course, Biden was not referring to the implications of the F.B.I. lawyer who lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court for the efforts to continue the surveillance of an adviser to the campaign of Donald Trump. Nor was he referring to growing evidence that the Russia investigation was launched based on false and flawed evidence.
"Biden was referring to the federal investigation by United States Attorney John Durham that led to the criminal plea by Clinesmith. Like most other Democrats, Biden previously denounced the investigation and the effort to look into criminality. Now that criminality has been found, Democrats and commentators still insist there are no reasons to continue it.
"From the start, Democrats overwhelmingly condemned the investigation despite admitting Durham is a respected prosecutor. Leaders like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff deemed the investigation 'tainted' and 'political.' Biden mocked the very idea of an 'investigation of the investigators' and added, 'Give me a break. Gosh almighty.' " ...
___________________
(The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill)
From Just The News || In bringing first Russiagate charge, Durham hints at other crimes | by John Solomon | 15 August, 2020
_______________
...
"The (F.I.S.A.) court filing notes that (Kevin) Clinesmith* 'willfully and knowingly' altered a document in June 2017 to falsely claim that Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — one of the main targets of the Russia collusion probe and identified in the court document as 'Individual #1' — was not a source for the C.I.A., identified in the court documents as 'Other Government Agency' or 'OGA.' In reality, Page was a C.I.A. asset.
Clinesmith-Document-2020-08-14.pdf
"The filing says Clinesmith's misdeed caused the F.B.I. to mislead the Justice Department and the F.I.S.A. court when filing an application for the last of four surveillance warrants that targeted Page for over a year.
"But Durham also reveals in the filing that the F.B.I. 'Crossfire Hurricane' team — led by since-fired Agent Peter Strzok — had already been told of Page's relationship with the C.I.A. all the way back in August 2016 and failed to tell the F.I.S.A. court that essential information about Page before the three prior F.I.S.A. (court) warrants were approved.
"Such a failure is known as a material omission because the F.B.I. was claiming they believed Page was an agent of Russia when in fact he was an asset of the U.S. government helping to inform on Russian intelligence targets. In other words, had the F.B.I. not omitted the truth, the judges would have known before they approved even the first F.I.S.A. (court) warrant that Page was a C.I.A.-handled source, not a Russian stooge."
...
__________________
* ex-FBI assistant general counsel
4Cubby.R.S.
>3 proximity1:
Thanks for this beautiful thread this morning. Corruption that would make Nixon quiver and Hitler sad he couldn't have waited to be born is still forthcoming (technological advance that would have been useful to any corrupt regime). Democrats will be pushing extra hard for the election to bury those nuggets and bodies before it's released. Just look at the idiocy in the Barr thread.
Thanks for this beautiful thread this morning. Corruption that would make Nixon quiver and Hitler sad he couldn't have waited to be born is still forthcoming (technological advance that would have been useful to any corrupt regime). Democrats will be pushing extra hard for the election to bury those nuggets and bodies before it's released. Just look at the idiocy in the Barr thread.
5proximity1
>4 Cubby.R.S.:
The credit goes to >1 Carnophile: who is, yes, a very sharp guy.
RE: ..."Corruption that would make Nixon quiver and Hitler sad he couldn't have waited to be born"...
LOL! Yes, this!
I've thought that or things very similar to it from time to time so it's amusing to read it from another.
WTF has happened to people?!
Think about it: it's just an accident of history that Hitler was "White" rather than a Black man and that his targets were Jews and all manner of other, as defined by his ideology, physically and socially deviant people rather than, say, "White " people.
All that's needed would be for a neo-Hitler to be Black and to champion Blacks against the "scourge" of morally-depraved and physically and socially deviant and dangerous "White people" for his cause to be enthusiastically embraced by today's delusional so-called "Liberals"/"Leftists"
Just change the superficial styles---
or this:
Lest our political opposition denounce this as a vile juxtaposition, well, it seems some of them had already thought of applying it to their opponents--who's surprised?
What do these so-called "liberals" think is going to happen when they sit by as "Turn-key" Totalitarianism is further enhanced and embedded?
Carnophile has already drawn attention to this in a thread called ",Pro and Con : Lefties are so cute, how they think the monsters they create won’t eat them"
The credit goes to >1 Carnophile: who is, yes, a very sharp guy.
RE: ..."Corruption that would make Nixon quiver and Hitler sad he couldn't have waited to be born"...
LOL! Yes, this!
I've thought that or things very similar to it from time to time so it's amusing to read it from another.
WTF has happened to people?!
Think about it: it's just an accident of history that Hitler was "White" rather than a Black man and that his targets were Jews and all manner of other, as defined by his ideology, physically and socially deviant people rather than, say, "White " people.
All that's needed would be for a neo-Hitler to be Black and to champion Blacks against the "scourge" of morally-depraved and physically and socially deviant and dangerous "White people" for his cause to be enthusiastically embraced by today's delusional so-called "Liberals"/"Leftists"
Just change the superficial styles---
or this:
Lest our political opposition denounce this as a vile juxtaposition, well, it seems some of them had already thought of applying it to their opponents--who's surprised?
What do these so-called "liberals" think is going to happen when they sit by as "Turn-key" Totalitarianism is further enhanced and embedded?
Carnophile has already drawn attention to this in a thread called ",Pro and Con : Lefties are so cute, how they think the monsters they create won’t eat them"
7Kuiperdolin
That's a great thread. Media should talk about this more.
9jjwilson61
According to Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, on the public radio show All The President's Lawyers, the act that the FBI lawyer pled guilty to is common practice and no one ever suffers consequences from it. In other words, this is a political witch Hunt intended to protect Trump.
10proximity1
>9 jjwilson61:
Wait a minute! I thought you lot liked Witch-hunts! ??? You've been all for them until recently! WTF!?!
The more that public contemporary events force their hand, the more astounding things we learn about from so-called "liberals" who pride themselves on their "progressive-ism" --learn about what they just don't give a shit about. Like evidence tampering, submitting false and misleading evidence in order to illegally gain authorization for government surveillance of people who should otherwise not be legally subject to such surveillance.
Sheesh!
"Common practice"? Oh, well, that's too fucking bad.
Moreover, it's not merely that false statements were made in response to law-enforcement during an official investigation—it's what ensued from that offense and the nature and character of the ramifications of the statement which led to entire strings of defamatory claims intended to criminally implicate this and other innocent people.
Come here and tell us straight out that this doesn't matter to you—if you have the fucking nerve to be so honest as that.
The stuff Trump's advisor General Flynn was accused of was also entirely common practice. The alleged efforts of "Russians" to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election--these were all also entirely common practice. Trump's consultations with foreign governments? Common practice. Everything Trump and his advisors did or were accused of having done--many of these utterly false accusations--common practices.
None of that mattered to the lynch-mobs out to get these men. And now we know that they broke serious laws--felonies. They tampered with evidence, suppressed evidence of their own crimes, lied, perjured themselves, made false criminal allegations against others, framed them.
And you come here and tell us in effect that none of this ought to matter because so much of it was "common practice"? Murder is common practice. Do you next propose that we dispense with worrying too much about murder?
We're going to take your idiotic fucking "common practice" objections and hang your fucking ideological associates with them as they march off to prison.
And, in the November election? Those objections of "common practice"? Voters are going to bury you with their common practice of re-electing Trump.
How do you like them "common practices"? Your fellow ideologues in important office? That's in line to be far, far less "common practice."
So "practice" getting used to that.
Oh, and a little P.S. to Stephen Colbert:
Stephen Colbert, you're a fucking moron, you fucking moron.
We're going to hold the Obama administration accountable ---to the criminal law, you fucking jerk.
Wait a minute! I thought you lot liked Witch-hunts! ??? You've been all for them until recently! WTF!?!
The more that public contemporary events force their hand, the more astounding things we learn about from so-called "liberals" who pride themselves on their "progressive-ism" --learn about what they just don't give a shit about. Like evidence tampering, submitting false and misleading evidence in order to illegally gain authorization for government surveillance of people who should otherwise not be legally subject to such surveillance.
Sheesh!
"Common practice"? Oh, well, that's too fucking bad.
(In the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia)
U.S.
vs.
Kevin Clinesmith
_________________
...defendant, KEVIN CLINESMITH, did willfully and knowingly make and use a false writing and document, knowing the same to contain a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and entry in a matter before the jurisdiction of the executive branch and judicial branch of the Government of the United States.” …
Moreover, it's not merely that false statements were made in response to law-enforcement during an official investigation—it's what ensued from that offense and the nature and character of the ramifications of the statement which led to entire strings of defamatory claims intended to criminally implicate this and other innocent people.
Come here and tell us straight out that this doesn't matter to you—if you have the fucking nerve to be so honest as that.
The stuff Trump's advisor General Flynn was accused of was also entirely common practice. The alleged efforts of "Russians" to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election--these were all also entirely common practice. Trump's consultations with foreign governments? Common practice. Everything Trump and his advisors did or were accused of having done--many of these utterly false accusations--common practices.
None of that mattered to the lynch-mobs out to get these men. And now we know that they broke serious laws--felonies. They tampered with evidence, suppressed evidence of their own crimes, lied, perjured themselves, made false criminal allegations against others, framed them.
And you come here and tell us in effect that none of this ought to matter because so much of it was "common practice"? Murder is common practice. Do you next propose that we dispense with worrying too much about murder?
We're going to take your idiotic fucking "common practice" objections and hang your fucking ideological associates with them as they march off to prison.
And, in the November election? Those objections of "common practice"? Voters are going to bury you with their common practice of re-electing Trump.
How do you like them "common practices"? Your fellow ideologues in important office? That's in line to be far, far less "common practice."
So "practice" getting used to that.
Oh, and a little P.S. to Stephen Colbert:
Stephen Colbert, you're a fucking moron, you fucking moron.
We're going to hold the Obama administration accountable ---to the criminal law, you fucking jerk.
11kiparsky
>10 proximity1: Murder is common practice.
Just wanted to call this out. Proxette actually said this.
Maybe it's time for her nap?
Just wanted to call this out. Proxette actually said this.
Maybe it's time for her nap?
13Carnophile
>9 jjwilson61: the act that the FBI lawyer pled guilty to is common practice
In other words, Trump and his supporters are right that the FBI is thoroughly corrupt.
this is a political witch Hunt intended to protect Trump
...from our prosecution based on falsified evidence.
In other words, Trump and his supporters are right that the FBI is thoroughly corrupt.
this is a political witch Hunt intended to protect Trump
...from our prosecution based on falsified evidence.
14Carnophile
An FBI lawyer falsified evidence to make a Trump associate look guilty. But it's Trump who's engaging in a witch hunt?! God, you leftists really are utterly shameless.
15jjwilson61
I wouldn't say thoroughly corrupt but they do take shortcuts sometimes to ensure a successful prosecution. It's notable that Trump and his cronies only care about it when it affects them.
16Carnophile
Fact: Intelligence employee falsifies evidence as part of a campaign to take down the duly elected President.
jjwilson's hot take: The REAL story here is that Trump and his lawyers are focused on defending Trump! Those bastards!
jjwilson's hot take: The REAL story here is that Trump and his lawyers are focused on defending Trump! Those bastards!
17jjwilson61
So you have proof of his motives? What is your source?
18Carnophile
>17 jjwilson61: Aside from his falsifying evidence, you mean?
19John5918
>18 Carnophile:
Falsifying evidence is an action, not a motive. I believe >17 jjwilson61: is asking you about the motive.
Falsifying evidence is an action, not a motive. I believe >17 jjwilson61: is asking you about the motive.
20Carnophile
Shockingly, we can infer people's motives from their actions.
21John5918
>20 Carnophile: we can infer people's motives from their actions
You don't believe that the same action can take place for a number of completely different motives? A recent 80th anniversary reminds us that Churchill sank the French fleet in Oran following France's surrender in 1940. Many French people inferred from his actions that Churchill's motive was anti-French. Many British people inferred from his actions that the motive was to prevent the fleet falling into Nazi hands and being used against Britain.
You don't believe that the same action can take place for a number of completely different motives? A recent 80th anniversary reminds us that Churchill sank the French fleet in Oran following France's surrender in 1940. Many French people inferred from his actions that Churchill's motive was anti-French. Many British people inferred from his actions that the motive was to prevent the fleet falling into Nazi hands and being used against Britain.
22jjwilson61
>20 Carnophile: Also known as jumping to conclusions.
23Carnophile
>21 John5918: Ah yes, all the innocent motives for falsifying evidence to get a surveillance warrant on someone.
24proximity1
>23 Carnophile:
Not to mention that the criminal code violated in this instance takes no account of the accused's real or supposed motive. As with so many crimes, commission of the act is illegal without any regard for motive.
The exceptions are rare.
It's a defense to commit a crime if doing so is the only reasonable way to prevent the commission of a more serious crime. Cheating to get Biden elected on the ground that the election of Trump is a greater "crime"-- fortunately we're not there yet even if Adam Schiff, the Bidens, the Obamas, the Clintons, the Podestas, the Pelosis, the Schumers, are there.
That you've experienced life under a real dictatorship (and that, apparently, so many spoiled U.S. Lefties simply never have) may explain a great deal about the course of these discussions.
Not to mention that the criminal code violated in this instance takes no account of the accused's real or supposed motive. As with so many crimes, commission of the act is illegal without any regard for motive.
The exceptions are rare.
It's a defense to commit a crime if doing so is the only reasonable way to prevent the commission of a more serious crime. Cheating to get Biden elected on the ground that the election of Trump is a greater "crime"-- fortunately we're not there yet even if Adam Schiff, the Bidens, the Obamas, the Clintons, the Podestas, the Pelosis, the Schumers, are there.
That you've experienced life under a real dictatorship (and that, apparently, so many spoiled U.S. Lefties simply never have) may explain a great deal about the course of these discussions.
25John5918
>24 proximity1: That you've experienced life under a real dictatorship... may explain a great deal about the course of these discussions.
Interesting. I didn't know that Carnophile and I both share the experience of living under a real dictatorship (three, in my case). But note that despite that shared experience, we appear to be on opposite courses in these discussions.
Interesting. I didn't know that Carnophile and I both share the experience of living under a real dictatorship (three, in my case). But note that despite that shared experience, we appear to be on opposite courses in these discussions.
26proximity1
"..." "..." "..."
27aspirit
>1 Carnophile: "TL, DR: Good news for Trump; bad news for the "muh Russia" conspiracy theorists."
Is it? The blurb on the article: "Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials that the president has long alleged."
That suggests to me a long version that's bad news for Trump. I can't see the full NYT article behind the paywall, but other news companies covered this case last month.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/14/ex-fbi-lawyer-charged-ma... (Aug 14)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clin... (Aug 19)
Someone is being held accountable and expresses regrets for mistakes. Novel. It's as if we're back in the year 2010.
This case doesn't explain any of the well-known Russian ties to Trump and his administration staff, or why Trump frequently discusses the FBI, a part of his own government, as an enemy while refusing to say anything against Putin, acknowledges Russian interference in the US elections, or address the attacks on US forces. So it's not doing anything to make the Russian threat on our nation look any less real.
Is it? The blurb on the article: "Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials that the president has long alleged."
That suggests to me a long version that's bad news for Trump. I can't see the full NYT article behind the paywall, but other news companies covered this case last month.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/14/ex-fbi-lawyer-charged-ma... (Aug 14)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/19/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clin... (Aug 19)
Clinesmith's lawyers said last week that their client "deeply regrets" his actions and that he never intended to mislead investigators or the court that approved the surveillance applications.
Someone is being held accountable and expresses regrets for mistakes. Novel. It's as if we're back in the year 2010.
This case doesn't explain any of the well-known Russian ties to Trump and his administration staff, or why Trump frequently discusses the FBI, a part of his own government, as an enemy while refusing to say anything against Putin, acknowledges Russian interference in the US elections, or address the attacks on US forces. So it's not doing anything to make the Russian threat on our nation look any less real.
28proximity1
Trump's "own government"!?!
Hardly!
Obama's F.B.I.,
(Lisa Page, F.B.I. Attorney to her confidant and fellow F.B.I. employee, senior Special Agent, Peter Strzok):
PAGE: “(Trump’s) not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”
STRZOK: “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” (August, 2016)
Four years and three months on, it's reckoning time.
Did you really think your crowd could get away with such shit? And, having been caught dead-to-wrongs, did you really think that voters would forget or simply not give a damn?
LOL!
29Carnophile
>27 aspirit: "Prosecutors did not reveal any evidence of the kind of broad anti-Trump conspiracy among law enforcement officials..."
As I noted in #2, “This is of course irrelevant, since there's no reason prosecutors would do so. They're not prosecuting ‘an investigation’ but a particular individual.”
Clinesmith's lawyers said last week that their client "deeply regrets" his actions...
Criminal caught red-handed expresses contrition. No shit! You don’t defiantly shout “I have no regrets!” (At least not before you’re sentenced.)
...and that he never intended to mislead investigators or the court that approved the surveillance applications.
He never intended to mislead when he fucking lied?! SERIOUSLY?!
This case doesn't explain any of the well-known Russian ties to Trump...
Oh Lord.
As I noted in #2, “This is of course irrelevant, since there's no reason prosecutors would do so. They're not prosecuting ‘an investigation’ but a particular individual.”
Clinesmith's lawyers said last week that their client "deeply regrets" his actions...
Criminal caught red-handed expresses contrition. No shit! You don’t defiantly shout “I have no regrets!” (At least not before you’re sentenced.)
...and that he never intended to mislead investigators or the court that approved the surveillance applications.
He never intended to mislead when he fucking lied?! SERIOUSLY?!
This case doesn't explain any of the well-known Russian ties to Trump...
Oh Lord.
