shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
This is the charge Durham is keeping in his back pocket. It could produce a much longer sentence if Clinesmith refuses to go forward.
Quote Tweet

OneFlewOver_USA
@OneFlewOver_USA
Replying to @shipwreckedcrew
Why wasn't 18 usc 1519 (evidence tampering) the original charge? He'd better be doing a lot of singing to get off with a 1001.
8:34 PM · Aug 15, 2020·
Here we go:
18 U.S. Code § 1519.
Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters ... any ... document ... with the intent to ... influence the investigation ... of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
Not more than 20 years? Ya mean, up to 20 years? Ouch!
Clinesmith better know what he's up to.
Also, how about:
ReplyDelete18 U.S. Code § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Add Conspiracy to do all of the above if there is evidence Clinesmith did not act alone (which the information seems to suggests.)
"Got that one in the hopper, percolating until its ready to go. You can't talk about stuff where you might be a witness in a way that 'suggests' and 'shapes' what others might say. At least that's what the Mueller Report said about Donald Trump's twitter habits."
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/1295126822368104448
Just the tip of the iceberg! There's a lot more that can be added. Plus, add another count of each for each recipient, etc. The way the criminal code is written, when you do something basically wrong, it triggers at least 10 statutes. There will be no problem doing a serious indictment here if the situation warrants.
DeleteIf I'm a lawyer--which I'm not, but I was an army officer for almost 6 years and understand the importance of covering my ass in a large government bureaucracy--I'm not as a junior level guy going to go materially altering emails from CIA liaison officers to the FBI unless someone senior has told me to do it and I have kept the receipts.
ReplyDeleteThis is a game of black jack I feel at this point. Durham has Clinesmith dead to rights on a felony that carries a 20 year prison sentence but only has until January 20th to prosecute if Clinesmith goes to trial and Biden wins. Clinesmith almost certainly has proof Weissman and maybe even Mueller ordered him to alter that document and can take the sweet plea. Weismann and his DS buddies seem to have convinced Clinesmith to tentatively renege on the assumption he can drag out his prosecution until a Biden victory. But Durham still has some cards to play that can intimidate Clinesmith to returning to the agreement. Looking at Clinesmith's official photo, he is the guy at the casino or the bar fight you wanna be playing against.
The only leverage that Clinesmith has is to implicate others in criminal activity of which he was a participant or witness. And in all likelihood, he has already provided this cooperation and Durham has included this assistance in his game plan. And this assistance was probably not trivial because Durham agreed to a single and lesser charge in the plea agreement.
ReplyDeleteClinesmith's attorneys are now trying to prep a narrative that may allow a judge to mitigate his prison time at sentencing, perhaps even allowing probation. This suggests that Clinesmith really, really does not want to much spend time in a federal prison.
Did Clinesmith alter the email on his own initiative, or did someone ask him to do so (perhaps someone like Andrew Weissman)? If so, are there emails or other EC documenting this instruction? What cards is Durham holding?
Clinesmith is a small fish and the Durham investigation has been going on for a long time, adding staff, and Barr has been distributing parts to other AUSAs. If petty gamesmanship is all that the Lawfare Group can muster, this will not be a fair fight.
That seems about right to me, the more I think about it. Bill Barr. Right guy for the job.
DeleteAs everyone says, you'd for sure think there's no way Clinesmith could get off on a single 1001 without having given up some useful info first. (I mean, could it possibly be true they couldn’t get him on anything else, not even the evidence tampering charge?) Plus any deal would require his continuing cooperation.
DeleteSo I just wonder if the PR hit the cabal’s narrative could take here (from an immediately contrite Clinesmith) isn’t a lot bigger than anyone’s talking about. I mean, if Clinesmith plays ball right on schedule and just goes in front of a judge like a good boy and admits he purposely broke the law to get FISA #4 over the top, then the obvious story is his foundational motive: why was getting this FISA through so damn important that this anti-Trump government lawyer was willing to risk it all to make it happen? Then would come the explanation that all 4 FISAs would’ve come crashing down without this crime, followed by explanations of what effects that would’ve had on the whole damn dirty project. Even the Cabal Media would have a tough time of completely spinning, downplaying and memory holing this.
And precisely this story was just getting off the ground right when Clinesmith, via Shur, released his statement, and in an instant the story died – replaced by the one everyone’s now talking about. So whatever their plan is, one thing for sure is that they just bought the cabal some more time to keep the narrative from taking a major -perhaps game-changing- hit, and there’s just no way they aren’t aware of this.
Clinesmith probably still has every intention of pleading guilty, as theoretically agreed to. But by pushing out the date for that to happen, he lets the current, cabal-friendly spin get out there first, and by the time he finally does go plead, the immortal “it’s old news” tactic can do its thing. I get that that is walking a legal tightrope, but it’s probably one Clinesmith can stay on top of if he soon climbs down his “I didn’t really do it” tree behind the scenes.
And compare that to the social, financial and other risks of him turning his back to the cabal if they’re making clear that they desperately need him to throw them this little bone. The Democrat crime family knows how to protect and take very good care of those who play ball, and destroy those who don’t. You think Clinesmith doesn’t know this? What kind of post-prison, post-debarment job (and social) opportunities will be there for young Kevin if he betrays his masters, compared to what will be there if he serves them?
I don’t know what’s really going on here anymore than anyone else, but I do know that an evergreen tactic of these people is to tell outrageous, gaslighting lies at first, then string out the truth later, as slowly and minimally as they can. Which means the bad news never makes the big splash it otherwise would, which means it always stay manageable, which means the bad guys live to fight another day.
Anyway, just a thought…
"Clinesmith probably still has every intention of pleading guilty, as theoretically agreed to. But by pushing out the date for that to happen ..."
DeleteHe doesn't control that process, nor does he control the number and nature of the charges if he plays around like this.
Good point about Clinesmith having no ability to affect when he gets to go plead. I made wrong/amateur assumptions in not seeing that and was thinking it could be a week or two before it would happen. I also take your point - very well - that Barr isn’t to be screwed with. You’ve made that point consistently, and I probably should’ve had more faith in it. I still worry the ultimate impact of the story on people who aren’t already following it closely will be blunted after the momentum-breaking stunt the other day, but I’m glad Clinesmith’s going in front of a judge so soon, and it should be interesting to see how both he and Boasberg handle it..
DeleteIf Trump loses in November, this won't go away, at least not cleanly. Barr will, in all likelihood, appoint an SC himself before he leaves office. Now, the Democrats won't balk at firing such an SC the moment they take power, but there will be a political price to be paid in doing so.
ReplyDeleteBarr is not to be trifled with.
Delete"this won't go away, at least not cleanly....
Deletethere will be a political price to be paid...."
That price will be trivial, compared to the Dem gains by them firing the SC.
So what, that it doesn't go away cleanly?
Anyone who would speak forcefully vs. such a firing would risk being Cancelled, in ways Mao would approve.
So, Barr's options might seem weighty, until we look at the whole picture.
Until he can show armies willing to torch whole blocks or cities (like antiFa & BLM can), he's like a sniper opposing a fleet of Hueys.
@Yancey
Delete"If Trump loses in November, this won't go away, at least not cleanly."
I'm glad to hear you say this, Yancey. I have been a voice in the wilderness on this for quite some time.
If on January 20, 2021 Joe Biden is inaugurated and he fires Barr and Durham, existing investigations and prosecutions won't *disappear*. I'm not underestimating the corruption of the Dems and Conspirators but Barr and Durham will have had plenty of time to insure that the cases move forward, whether by special counsel or otherwise. Barr gave us a foreshadowing of this when he explained in connection with Geoffrey Berman's removal why Berman's on-going investigations wouldn't stop.
Again, I'll repeat. I'm not naive. I know the Dems are corrupt. But there will be a high price to pay for Biden if he attempts to 'obstruct justice.' The playbook has already been written. However the 2020 election turns out 60+ million Americans will have voted for Trump.
Ever the pessimist I'll throw in my two cents.
DeleteTo all appearances the Party (Democrats, DS, Global Oligarchs, Socialists) view this election as existential (they are literally burning down cities and destroying economies wholesale as we speak in preparation). If the B/K ticket carries the WH then it is, in my estimation, a 4 to 1 proposition that the forces of Darkness will take both Houses of Congress. If that happens they will not give a hoot in hell about "heavy political cost." What's a few more cattle cars headed to the re-education camps in the Sonora Desert? An authoritarian in power has no qualms about exercising authority and only fears losing it; which means brutal and remorseless force to pry it from their cold dead hands. From whence will come that force?
Barr had better have something a lot more kinetically convincing than, "They wouldn't dare," in his pocket. I can't recall the attribution but Socialism has always accepted as given that, "Democracy is like a streetcar that you ride until it is time to get off." The Party apparently feels its destination is nigh.
Totally OT, I know, but this is a great thread on herd immunity. It links to two PDFs, also, both of which are excellent, imo.
ReplyDeleteAt a minimum, it's all good food for thought.
twitter.com/yinonw/status/1295152579941249024
Well surprise, surprise. Turns out John Hinderaker has this to say:
ReplyDelete/
Second, will Clinesmith benefit more by talking or by remaining silent? Again, using the Mafia as an analogy, most Mafiosis who are caught don’t squeal on higher-ups. They know that if they stay silent and serve their prison term, they will be taken care of when they regain their freedom. Kevin Clinesmith may be in the same position. Prosecutors can urge the court to give him a lighter sentence in exchange for cooperation, but they can’t make his crime go away, and they can’t do anything for Clinesmith when he gets out of prison. At that point he will be a disbarred lawyer, a man without a career.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, can take care of him lavishly and I expect would be willing to do so in return for his silence. So silence may be the better bet. We know, too, that Clinesmith is a loyal if not fanatical Democrat, a self-described member of the “resistance” to our lawfully elected president. We may begin to find out what Clinesmith is able and willing to say when he appears in court in connection with his guilty plea.
/
powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/08/about-kevin-clinesmith-2.php
Whatever else is going on, this dynamic has to be considered as a serious candidate for what’s driving things. And pace Hinderaker, Clinesmith doesn't really have to be “remain silent.” He's probably already given some degree of cooperation, maybe even a lot. But with the help of some very clever lawyers, he can (maybe) limit the damage going forward without blowing his own fate to shreds. His recent actions, at least, would on their face be wholly consistent with such an objective.
"he can (maybe) limit the damage going forward without blowing his own fate to shreds."
DeleteI think you and Hinderaker underestimate the willingness of Durham and Barr to play hardball. Barr understands that our constitutional order is at stake and Durham has experience prosecuting Mafiosi. KC has it in his power to dramatically increase the damage to his life going forward.
We should learn a lot from this. Going forward.
"you and Hinderaker underestimate the willingness of Durham and Barr to play hardball."
DeleteI don't doubt Barr's determination, but I do doubt the range of his options, which might seem weighty, until we look at the whole picture.
Until he can show armies willing to torch whole blocks or cities (like antiFa & BLM can), he's like the Weimar gov't trying to behave within the law, while the S.A. and the Reds respected no such restraints, except insofar as their high commands calculated temporary respect for such restraints to be tactically prudent.
TGP via Techno_Fog is reporting Clinesmith will be entering his plea on 19 August before Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee who apparently ruled in 2012 that American citizens had no right to view photos of the body of Osama bin Laden...
ReplyDeleteDJL
But that's not the whole story on Boasberg's non-FISA rulings:
Deletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Boasberg#Hillary_Clinton_emails
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Boasberg#Trump_tax_returns
I can't find any story which says when. When does he plead guilt? Today?
ReplyDeleteHaha, nevermind. You just posted it.
ReplyDelete