In Defense Of Lindsey Graham

While we're on the subject of compelled testimony ...

We regularly hear how worthless Lindsey Graham is because he doesn't haul Russia Hoax malefactors--people we know did wrong--before the Senate and force them to come clean.

Shipwreckedcrew just put out a new post expanding a bit on the whole issue of compelled testimony and the trouble a prosecutor can get it into if he even inadvertently uses it at trial. In doing so, he offers two examples that have nothing to do with OIG, but which are nevertheless quite relevant to what's going on in DC these days. One has to do with testimony compelled by a foreign sovereign--the UK. We can dispense with that one. However, the other example has to do with testimony compelled by the United States Senate. Testimony compelled by the Senate cannot be used against a defendant and may taint the entire prosecution--and that hits home.

The excerpt below begins with a reference to Andrew Weissmann. Weissmann was part of the prosecution team in the UK related case, and thought he might be able to pull a fast one. It didn't work, but it was typical of his "style." That's not the real point. The real point follows:

Weissmann knew this was the law at the time — this is the EXACT basis upon which Oliver North and John Poindexter’s convictions were thrown out after Iran-Contra.  North and Poindexter were both subpoenaed to testify before Congress, and both were compelled to testify by a grant of immunity.  Had they refused they would have been in Contempt of Congress.  After they were convicted at trial by Iran-Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, their convictions were reversed because Walsh could not establish to the satisfaction of the Court that none of Walsh’s witnesses had watched or read North and Poindexter’s compelled testimony in which they admitted to certain conduct that later formed the basis of the criminal charges brought by Walsh.  Thus, all Walsh’s evidence at trial was presumed to have been “tainted” by the compelled testimony given by North and Poindexter, and their convictions were thrown out on appeal. 

You know who else knows that — a guy named Michael Bromwich, who was one of the prosecutors in the North and Poindexter trials.  Bromwich represents Andrew McCabe. 

THIS is the reason why Durham must be slow and deliberate.  He must be able to show that the evidence relies [sic] on in any criminal case is not “tainted” by evidence obtained by the IG’s investigation through compelled testimony. 

The Allen case shows you exactly what happens on appeal when those issues are not dealt with and resolved BEFORE an indictment is returned.

This is why I keep saying that I'm sure that Senator Graham is coordinating with Bill Barr. It's because he doesn't want to screw up any potential prosecution for a few minutes of grandstanding that would be forgotten within 24 hours. Yes, he could subpoena Comey, for example, but Comey would simply take the Fifth. What would be the point?