He will defend that by claiming that he believed that Carter Page was not an "actual" source. In other words, it all depends on the meaning of the word "source." The CIA and Michael Horowitz and the FBI and DoJ may believe that Page--an "operational contact" of the CIA from 2008 to 2013--was a "source", but Clinesmith knew better and was therefore justified in altering a document produced by the CIA yet presenting as the CIA's actual judgment on the matter.
That appears to be the implication of his lawyer's statement, as also buttressed by the NYT--official spokesman for the Deep State. Here is his lawyer's statement:
"Kevin deeply regrets having altered the email. It was never his intent to mislead the court or his colleagues as he believed the information he relayed was accurate. But Kevin understands what he did was wrong and accepts responsibility."
No judge can accept a plea of guilty to making false statements framed in those terms. The plea will have to be rejected unless Clinesmith backs away from that statement and agrees that his alteration made the CIA email misleading.
The NYT offers us this parsing of that statement:
Mr. Clinesmith’s argued that he did not change the document in an attempt to cover up the F.B.I.’s mistake. His lawyers argued that he had made the change in good faith because he did not think that Mr. Page had been an actual source for the C.I.A.
We're about to find out if the Deep State has got to Clinesmith and persuaded him to offer himself up in what I have to believe will prove to be only a delaying tactic. I find it hard to believe that a DC jury will accept this argument, or that any judge will endorse it through jury instructions.
Nevertheless, in a signal from the depths of the Deep State, Andrew Weissmann--who has been tweeting furiously, in a clear sign that his own future is at stake in the Clinesmith case--offered this yesterday:
Compare that with the information filed by Durham:
"On Aug 17, 2016, prior to the approval of FISA #1, the OGA (CIA) provided certain members of the Crossfire Hurricane team a memorandum indicating that Individual #1 (Page) had been approved as an operational contact for the OGA (CIA) from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that Individual #1 (Page) had provided to the OGA (CIA) concerning Individual #1's prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. The first three FISA applications did not include Individual #1's history or status with the OGA (CIA)."
Is Clinesmith on the fence and is Weissmann desperately trying to get him to come down on the Deep State side? Will Clinesmith ultimately come down on the side of justice? We're about to find out. It's about the meaning of the word 'source'. And the words 'rule of law.'
The questions for Mr. Clinesmith are: "Why did you alter the CIA document at all? Why didn't you just append the document with your own 'personal' perspective?" Therein lies the intent to deceive.ReplyDelete
Perhaps Clinesmith and his attorney are looking for a sympathetic DC judge (with a little help from the Deep State) in the form of an Amy Berman-Jackson or Emmett Sullivan. Anything to slow roll the proceedings until after the election.
Very few judges are sympathetic to forgeries being presented to a court.Delete
That may be, but it sure appears that judge Sullivan didn't mind DOJ attorney Van Grack hiding Brady material from the court regarding General Flynn. If Sullivan sanctioned Van Grack, I never saw the reporting.Delete
Perhaps Van Grack will be charged in the "big reveal" when Durham finishes... I'm not hanging much hope on that as one of the outcomes, however.
I certainly hope so.Delete
So, I guess this is the legal equivalent of all in? If Clinesmith fights this, there is no way the legal wranglings play out before November. If Biden wins, this with Hunter's questionable rent-seeking is all washed away. What's more, it would not surprise me if there is an all-out prosecution of Trump and all who stood meekly by him. I am not confident the good and just will prevail.ReplyDelete
We're gonna find out soon enough.Delete
Yep. Same conclusion i came to in a couple of your Clinesmith’s previous posts. Smells like Lawfare group and DS based on Weissmann’s tweets from Fridays announcement.ReplyDelete
It doesnt take much imagination to create the conversations that likely happened after K-rat's plea deal. Promises from the Dem Staters that all would be forgiven and K-rat would be given a cushy university job somewhere if only he would back out of the deal and try to drag it out to November.ReplyDelete
In a major respect, the meaning of the word 'Source' is irrelevant.ReplyDelete
When presenting *evidence* (to e.g. a court) obtained from someone else (e.g. the CIA), any *alteration* of this evidence (from its condition, when originally obtained), of any kind, must be construed as Obstruction.
A cop's view (of how "source" should be construed), means jack. It's for the jury, not the cop, to assess what the CIA meant by "source".
Just as it would be BS, for the CPD to fold Laquan McD's knife, and fail to inform the jury that they had obtained it in the unfolded position.
This is Police Work 101.
Agreed. By altering it he made it his own, yet presented it as the CIA's. That's a deception.Delete
My first thought too, was delaying action.ReplyDelete
Could have major consequences for him.Delete
Does the Clinesmith balk mean that no indictments will be coming down from Durham before the election? Is Clinesmith the necessary first domino?Delete
Please tell me I'm all wet.
We can't say it means that. What it means--whether it's a true balk or not or whether it gets walked back--remains to be seen, as also the consequences.Delete
Delay seems to be the default tactic, for both Clinesmith and Judge Sullivan. Hoping that Biden wins and all will be right with the world. Can't expect anything more honorable from these jerks.ReplyDelete
Playing games with the definition of "Source" doesn't help Clinesmith: the CIA person who wrote the email specifically offered to work with Clinesmith if he needed "clarifying language" relative to CP's status with the agency. Clinesmith declined to take her up on the offer, and instead altered the CIA email and forwarded it to the SSA, knowing all the while CP had been an "operational asset" of CIA.ReplyDelete
I would also argue "source" is implicitly subsumed by the definition of "operational asset." One can hardly be an operational asset and NOT, as a consequence, be providing the agency with information discovered by the operational asset.
All true. As I mentioned, clarifying communication rather than unilateral alteration without notification is the only acceptable way to deal with a lack of clarity. But of course that's the point: there WAS no lack of clarity. It's perfectly obvious to anyone who has had any experience whatsoever in the field that an "operational asset" who provides "reporting" is a source. I'm writing some more on these matters.Delete
If I may offer an observation; Weissmann has everyone chasing a red herring:Delete
Weissmann keeps couching the argument in the form that unless you can definitively prove that words Clinesmith added are a falsification of what CIA wrote, it's not material and thus he's not guilty of 1001.
Clinesmith is charged with a violation 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001(a)(3). The statute reads:
(a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry…
Note the highlighted text: I argue that the text inserted surreptitiously by Clinesmith in the CIA email constitutes a "fictitious statement" -- because CIA never wrote it. Clinesmith wrote it and inserted it, making it appear to be CIA's words. It is thus a fictitious statement.
It does not matter whether it conflicts with the truth; it is sufficient that it is fictitious, and has the potential to alter a decision that must be made by the recipient of the fictitious statement.
If it did not have the potential to influence a decision, then there would have been no motive for Clinesmith to insert the text in the first place; thus the act itself implies the motive, which on it's face is to deceive the recipient of the altered email to believe CIA wrote the fictitious statement. And the motive implies BOTH a) intent to commit the act of fabricating the fictitious statement, and b) materiality.
It is therefore fictitious, and hence, misleading, and material, and the act is clearly not an accident or oversight, and hence is intentional.
Thus, Clinesmith is guilty of 1001. It does not matter whether he intended to mislead; what matters is he intended to fabricate a fictitious statement attributed to a source that never made that statement, in order to influence the recipient of the email he altered by insertion of the fictitious statement.
Yes, you get to make an observation. :-)Delete
That's one way to present it.
The other, which I do at length in a new post, is to say that, in effect, Clinesmith created a new document which he passed off as a CIA doc. But because his alteration made it a new and different doc, he was presenting a totally false document (even though it was based on a real CIA doc).
I suspect there was a reason Clinesmith's attorney waited until the Information had been filed with the court — absent his plea, mind you — before issuing that carefully conflicted public statement. I don't believe it was organic. Somebody is playing f*** f*** games.ReplyDelete
Let's see what the consequence might be of playing such games with Durham after one has negotiated a plea deal. I shudder to think.
Yeah, I'll be very interested to see what comes of this.Delete
what do Mark and commenters make of this?
I'd like to tell ya, but my contract specifies that I can't discuss this stuff.Delete
My contract says that your contract would say that.Delete
Actually it makes sense to me. Can't vouch for any of it, of course.Delete
Some of it gets a little wild--thwart Hillary, then get rid of Trump. Still a lot makes sense.Delete
Which is why Trump is so fortunate to have Barr.
InfoWars correspondent arrested on robbery, domestic violence chargesDelete
No doubt Alex "IQ of a ten-year-old" Jones will be claiming conspiracy.
The video was removed for violating youtube's policy regarding hate speech. Thus, one must assume the video was at least significant or troubling to the DS. BHDelete
I listened to it while doing other things last night, so I beat the ban. Overall, while I thought some of it was fairly fanciful, what I considered the real main point--that formal government agencies are really only the tip of the Deep State iceberg--is valid.Delete
Weissman's always played the bully, bluster, make stuff up game his whole career. He's got away with it enough to think he's brilliant! However, it's not brilliance, but abuse of power when you do it as a prosecutor, with all the resources of the government behind you. His ego has mistaken his flagrant abuse of power as 'brilliance' and 'success.' However, he's about to find out, when you're the defendant/perp, it's a whole different ball game! He should already have an inkling from the fact that he's already being called out by so many and ridiculed a lot on twitter.ReplyDelete
That's true of so many in federal LE. They think they're brilliant. And, of course, when they retire they get hired as analysts because the MSM thinks they must have been brilliant, too. Some are. A lot aren't.Delete