Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty in first criminal case arising from review, sources say

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Proof? 35 years is a long time to remember a commission you served on for only one year.:lamo

Trevor Potter is the founder and president of the largest campaign law think tank in the country.

I'm confident in his understanding of election law.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

I can't wait for the criminals who wiped their emails to obstruct Mueller's searches for justice to be prosecuted.

Only politician that has wiped emails is the hildabeast (Hillary Clinton). She attempted to wipe 3000 of them. My question to you is: What dog do you have in this hunt? Or are you an American living in the UK?

 

[Cardinal]

Look at my sig

You made your bet with me in this thread starts around post #26

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...-s-russia-investigation-3.html#post1070975508

Okay, we have two problems with your bet:

1)This ex-FBI lawyer's guilty plea didn't arise out of the Durham investigation, which is pretty specifically the language in the initial bet. The revelation, which is not new, came out in the December 2019 release of the IG report. From your post:

"So you KNOW no indictments will come out of the Durham investigation? Are you confident enough in that position to make a friendly wager?"

2)I canceled the bet because you refused to put a time stamp on it so we had a clear idea of a winner and a loser:

Me: "Alright, so the expectation is that indictments will come out of the Durham investigation. Do we have an expected date for the announcement of this report? It’s December 5, right?"

You: "I have no idea when Durham will issue his report. You are the one the has a mole in his investigation not me."

Me: "An expected date is important so that I don’t declare victory prematurely and so that, conversely, we don’t forget about the bet altogether because we both end up in our 90’s. Specificity is important. Also note my edit, which is that indictments will come directly out of the Durham investigation. Again, specificity is important so that the winner and the loser aren’t ambiguous."

You: "no crawfishing. The bet you made and the bet I agreed to was any indictment made by the Durham investigation. You aren’t a welsher are you? Don’t be a typical Liberal."

Me: "Okay, then we’ll set the deadline at tomorrow at 8am. If no indictments result from the Durham investigation then I win." The point of me saying this was to illustrate that such a close deadline was as equally ridiculous as to your deadline that was completely open-ended.

You: "There you go again trying to crawfish . The bet you agreed to has no artificial time limits. We will have to wait for indictments or a report saying no indictments. There is a criminal investigation going on now I suspect there will be indictments also. Face it you are screwed. But hey don’t worry you are the one that said you KNOW no indictments will come out of the Durham investigation. "

Me: "I don’t want to die of old age before collecting on my bet. Let’s call it before the end of January. If you don’t accept then we’ll cancel the bet. Keeping it open ended is your way of maintaining artificial hope that the investigation will confirm your conspiracy theories. Accept a date for closure or there’s no bet." Now keep in mind that even though I stated "January," I'm really still keeping negotiations open. The important point I'm stating here is that there must be some kind of specific and mutually agreed upon closure to the bet.

You: "STOP trying to crawfish. I don’t expect Durham to make a report till next summer sometime. But there may be indictments before that. I have hear rumors about grand juries but we shall have to wait and see. You need to be a little patient. I doubt Barr would have started the Durham investigation unless he was pretty sure of criminal activity. The fact that AG Barr disagrees with the IG seems to point to Barr thinks someone broke the law. Don’t be a CRAWFISH."

Me: "TILL NEXT SUMMER??!! Forget it, you’re not taking this seriously."

So to wrap up, I canceled the bet because your time frame was ridiculous, and this guilty plea arose out of the IG report and not the Durham investigation. You fail on both levels.

 

[Jack Hays]

Okay, we have two problems with your bet:

1)This ex-FBI lawyer's guilty plea didn't arise out of the Durham investigation, which is pretty specifically the language in the initial bet. The revelation, which is not new, came out in the December 2019 release of the IG report. From your post:

"So you KNOW no indictments will come out of the Durham investigation? Are you confident enough in that position to make a friendly wager?"

2)I canceled the bet because you refused to put a time stamp on it so we had a clear idea of a winner and a loser: . . .

welsh
/welSH/
verbOFFENSIVE
verb: welch

• fail to honour (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement).
• "banks began welshing on their agreement not to convert dollar reserves into gold"

 

[Cardinal]

welsh
/welSH/
verbOFFENSIVE
verb: welch

• fail to honour (a debt or obligation incurred through a promise or agreement).
• "banks began welshing on their agreement not to convert dollar reserves into gold"

My post wasn't for you and similarly dishonest posters. It was for reasonable people who came here and saw somebody accuse me of welshing. You, for reasons you should find quite obvious, are not a reasonable person.

 

[Jack Hays]

My post wasn't for you and similarly dishonest posters. It was for reasonable people who came here and saw somebody accuse me of welshing. You, for reasons you should find quite obvious, are not a reasonable person.

I just provide information. Obviously your guilty conscience caused you to react. I've seen you post untruthfully before, so this is nothing new.

 

[jmotivator]

Borrowed from discussions of obstruction re: Trump himself, but still relevant. A little reminder on how broad something like federal obstruction of justice is: ...

I said that people who are guilty of a process crime who end up being unconnected to the crime being investigated are usually not prosecuted since it was an error on the part of the investigation that they were pulled into the investigation in the first place. That isn't to say it isn't a crime, it is just saying that it usually isn't prosecuted in those circumstances. In the case of Flynn, there wasn't just not connected, there was no crime being investigated. There are plenty of crimes that the prosecution has the discretion not to prosecute (see Hillary Clinton). And, in the case of Flynn, the investigating officers didn't even think he lied. Strzok edited the 302 to support the investigation, and Steele provided the lies that the FBI laundered to pad the FISA warrant.

In the case of this FBI lawyer he committed a crime willingly and with forethought.

Now, if it turns out that Barr and the DOJ threatened the lawyer's children to coerce a confession then I would support dropping charges.

 

[SLC]

Yes, he has. A guilty plea is a conviction.

However, it is not "final" because the litigation around his motion to withdraw guilty plea and the DOJ's unprecedented motion to dismiss charges in these circumstances has not been resolved. (In layman's terms).

Many many guilty pleas have been withdrawn much like Flynn withdrew his plea deal and in fact the DOJ has said they are unwilling to further prosecute his case. It ain't over till the fat lady sings.

 

[truthatallcost]

Keep the cell bunk warm Kevin, Peter will be there to join you shortly.

 

[SLC]

Trevor Potter is the founder and president of the largest campaign law think tank in the country.

I'm confident in his understanding of election law.

John Edwards was prosecuted on VERY similar charges and his hush money for his mistress came from a donor. They lost the case.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

John Edwards was prosecuted on VERY similar charges and his hush money for his mistress came from a donor. They lost the case.

Yes, he was. The fact that he was prosecuted for it kinda implies that it's a crime, no?

John Edwards' legal team tried to say that it wasn't a crime, but the judge explicitly rejected that argument. He was found not guilty due to a lack of evidence that he personally committed the crime - not because it wasn't actually a crime.

 

[post]

I said that people who are guilty of a process crime who end up being unconnected to the crime being investigated are usually not prosecuted since it was an error on the part of the investigation that they were pulled into the investigation in the first place. That isn't to say it isn't a crime, it is just saying that it usually isn't prosecuted in those circumstances. In the case of Flynn, there wasn't just not connected, there was no crime being investigated. There are plenty of crimes that the prosecution has the discretion not to prosecute (see Hillary Clinton). And, in the case of Flynn, the investigating officers didn't even think he lied. Strzok edited the 302 to support the investigation, and Steele provided the lies that the FBI laundered to pad the FISA warrant.

In the case of this FBI lawyer he committed a crime willingly and with forethought.

Now, if it turns out that Barr and the DOJ threatened the lawyer's children to coerce a confession then I would support dropping charges.

What do you suppose his motivation was? BTW, here is a page from Hope Hicks's June, 2019 testimony.

To distill it, she says Carter Page could not be separated from the Trump campaign because he was never a part of it.

 

[SLC]

Okay, we have two problems with your bet:

1)This ex-FBI lawyer's guilty plea didn't arise out of the Durham investigation, which is pretty specifically the language in the initial bet. The revelation, which is not new, came out in the December 2019 release of the IG report. From your post:

"So you KNOW no indictments will come out of the Durham investigation? Are you confident enough in that position to make a friendly wager?"

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham's review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, two sources close to the matter tell Fox

2)I canceled the bet because you refused to put a time stamp on it so we had a clear idea of a winner and a loser:

Me: "Alright, so the expectation is that indictments will come out of the Durham investigation. Do we have an expected date for the announcement of this report? It’s December 5, right?"

You: "I have no idea when Durham will issue his report. You are the one the has a mole in his investigation not me."

Me: "An expected date is important so that I don’t declare victory prematurely and so that, conversely, we don’t forget about the bet altogether because we both end up in our 90’s. Specificity is important. Also note my edit, which is that indictments will come directly out of the Durham investigation. Again, specificity is important so that the winner and the loser aren’t ambiguous."

You: "no crawfishing. The bet you made and the bet I agreed to was any indictment made by the Durham investigation. You aren’t a welsher are you? Don’t be a typical Liberal."

Me: "Okay, then we’ll set the deadline at tomorrow at 8am. If no indictments result from the Durham investigation then I win." The point of me saying this was to illustrate that such a close deadline was as equally ridiculous as to your deadline that was completely open-ended.

You: "There you go again trying to crawfish . The bet you agreed to has no artificial time limits. We will have to wait for indictments or a report saying no indictments. There is a criminal investigation going on now I suspect there will be indictments also. Face it you are screwed. But hey don’t worry you are the one that said you KNOW no indictments will come out of the Durham investigation. "

Me: "I don’t want to die of old age before collecting on my bet. Let’s call it before the end of January. If you don’t accept then we’ll cancel the bet. Keeping it open ended is your way of maintaining artificial hope that the investigation will confirm your conspiracy theories. Accept a date for closure or there’s no bet." Now keep in mind that even though I stated "January," I'm really still keeping negotiations open. The important point I'm stating here is that there must be some kind of specific and mutually agreed upon closure to the bet.

You: "STOP trying to crawfish. I don’t expect Durham to make a report till next summer sometime. But there may be indictments before that. I have hear rumors about grand juries but we shall have to wait and see. You need to be a little patient. I doubt Barr would have started the Durham investigation unless he was pretty sure of criminal activity. The fact that AG Barr disagrees with the IG seems to point to Barr thinks someone broke the law. Don’t be a CRAWFISH."

Me: "TILL NEXT SUMMER??!! Forget it, you’re not taking this seriously."

So to wrap up, I canceled the bet because your time frame was ridiculous, and this guilty plea arose out of the IG report and not the Durham investigation. You fail on both levels.

You made the bet you set the terms and I accepted your terms THEN you tried to change the parameters of the terms. Sorry but that dog don't hunt. A bet is a bet and an real man honors his bets. You lost and now you are welshing on the bet.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Are you saying that Clinesmith didn't really do what he just plead guilty to doing?

LOL! You mean Mike Flynn. Who actually pleaded guilty not just once. But twice.

 

[trixare4kids]

That's Fabulous, Jack. Let's hope he is spilling the beans now.


PS.These posters here wouldn't get ANY real news if it wasn't for some of us.

ITA! Way to say it the way it is...

 

[Paradoxical]

LOL! You mean Mike Flynn. Who actually pleaded guilty not just once. But twice.

His former attorneys work at a firm where Eric Holder is one of the bigwigs. 'Nuff said.

 

[trixare4kids]

Are you saying that Clinesmith didn't really do what he just plead guilty to doing?

Coming back to your thread after lots of nuh-uhs....
Am I correct to ask,……..::crickets::?

 

[Paradoxical]

Coming back to your thread after lots of nuh-uhs....
Am I correct to ask,……..::crickets::?

I am keeping my fingers crossed that he is spilling his guts. Seems like a very light charge for such criminality. Methinks there is an "arrangement". If there is, I hope Hillary isn't nearby on another "suicide" mission.

 

[danielpalos]

Durham probe: Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty in first criminal case arising from review, sources say | Fox News



For those who haven't been paying attention, Carter Page was a source for the CIA prior to his being an advisor on the Trump campaign. Clinesmith falsified a document which said that Page was a CIA source to say that Page WAS NOT a CIA source. This is a huge deal because it shows deliberate attempt to commit fraud on the court.

Does anyone really believe that he did this on his own and was not acting on behalf of others? I don't.

I have to wonder why the FBI didn't simply ask the CIA about Page. And, simply because he may have been working for the CIA at some point doesn't mean he wasn't looking out for his own capital interests under our form of Capitalism; like right wingers are wont to do, whenever they sacrifice the End to the Means.

 

[Atomic Kid]

There is a whole world of difference between this and Flynn.

Yeah we know. Flynn pleaded guilty twice.

 

[lurchadams]

You weren't watching Obama's AGs. What did you think about Lynch visiting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac while the DOJ was investigating Hillary. Do you think her investigation was handled above the board? BTW If you send a cool breeze this way I'll send you some...HOT AIR

My friend, that was nothing but bad optics. If you know what was actually discussed on that tarmac, perhaps you can tell all of us what trump has been discussing with Putin in all his secret meetings and phone calls?

 

[Cardinal]

=article Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will plead guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham's review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign, two sources close to the matter tell Fox

The author is mistaken, because unless Durham is a time traveler, the fact that an FBI lawyer altered emails rose out of the Horowitz investigation last year in 2019:

An FBI lawyer altered emails and changed his story when talking to the inspector general

And you can see that for yourself on page 250 of the Horowitz report itself.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

You made the bet you set the terms and I accepted your terms THEN you tried to change the parameters of the terms. Sorry but that dog don't hunt. A bet is a bet and an real man honors his bets. You lost and now you are welshing on the bet.

I've explained to you that I decided against finalizing the bet during the negotiations because I decided you were being unreasonable. If you disagree then you can bring this downstairs where people can come to a decision where I'll abide by a majority consensus. If you decide not to go that route then I'll consider this finished and done, and I will no longer respond to accusations of welshing. In any case, the second point, which is true, is made moot by the first point.

 

[Puigb]

This is all the conservative treehouse dingbats could come up with? Mycroft, where are you? Come defend your crew:lol:

 

[trixare4kids]

Charging someone who falsified official FBI documents related to an investigation based on a false predicate is protecting Trump from incrimination?

Doesn't that far more so seem like properly enforcing existing law?

Leftists don't appear to appreciate law enforcement … unless of course, they want LE to enforce to promote their political agenda.

 

[Atomic Kid]

His former attorneys work at a firm where Eric Holder is one of the bigwigs. 'Nuff said.

Flynn testified "under oath" that he was satisfied with his legal representation. They probably can't say whether they were particularly satisfied with him since he filed a false FARA statement through them