UPDATED: John Roberts: Buffoon Or Worse?

I embedded a series of tweets in the previous post on the corrupt FISC. Those tweets expressed the incredulity of all decent people that the new Chief Judge of the FISC, James Boasberg, has appointed an apologist for FBI criminality to review FBI proposals for reforming themselves. Mollie Hemingway has an excellent overall article--one among many commenters on the topic: Spy Court Picks FISA Abuse Denier To Tackle FISA Abuse--The appointment of a former official who served as an apologist for the FBI signals that the court isn't particularly concerned about the civil liberty violations catalogued by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The one thing missing from Mollie's article is mention of the person responsible for the production of this farce: Chief Justice John Roberts. With this one act Roberts has probably unalterably destroyed any remaining shred of credibility he possessed and revealed himself simply as a tool and servant of the Deep State.

Who, exactly, IS David Kris? This is self description from the Lawfare blog:

David Kris is a founder of Culper Partners LLC. He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington. Randomly, but increasingly, when he submits material for prepublication review by the government, Mr. Kris has been directed to add the following disclaimer or its equivalent, which should be understood to apply to all of his published work unless otherwise indicated: “All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.”

To get some idea of what a jackass Kris actually is, there's no better place to look than this March 1, 2018, selection at The Lawfare Blog: The Irony of the Nunes Memo. Here are excerpts, arranged in a continuous fashion. Note that Kris actually suggests that Devin Nunes should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for publishing his famou Nunes Memo, which has been completely vindicated by the Horowitz Dossier:

Briefly Noted: Bill Barr--The Can Do AG

Bill Barr said today that he's been in regular contact with President Trump about the 2020 Census and the citizenship question. And guess what? Barr says he's come up with a way to do it. That's the kind of can do AG that warms the cockles of a president like Trump.

Whatever led John Roberts to believe that Barr would be impressed with his goofy opinions?

In a visit to South Carolina on Monday, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said the Trump administration will present a legal work-around that will allow a question on citizenship to be added to the 2020 Census. 

Speaking to reporters after a scheduled stop at a federal prison, Barr said, “I think, over the next day or two, you’ll see what approach we’re taking and I think it does provide a pathway for getting the question on the census.” 

...  

Barr also expressed little concern for the pending testimony of former special counsel Robert Mueller ...

... 

Barr said he doesn’t think the testimony serves a purpose after Mueller said he would stick to the content of his original report. 

“It seems to me the only reason for doing that is to create some kind of public spectacle,” Barr said. “If (Mueller) decides he doesn’t want to be subjected to that, the DOJ will certainly back that.” 

... 

Barr said he has been in regular contact with Trump over the [census] issue. 

“I agree with him that the Supreme Court decision was wrong,” said Barr. He said he believes there is “an opportunity potentially to cure the lack of clarity that was the problem and we might as well take a shot at doing that.” 

... 

As the administration grapples for a way around the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Justice Department has shaken up its legal team handling the matter. 

... 

An administration official said the new legal team may find it easier to argue the administration’s new position. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official wasn’t authorized to speak on the record.

What Good Is The Supreme Court?

Aren't Supreme Court justices supposed to be highly credentialed legal scholars--well, at least nowadays? Don't they have a small army of law clerks, all graduates of from the top tier of their class at the top law schools? And, in the case of Brett Kavanaugh, isn't every single one of those clerks the smartest female available for the job?

A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.

Amy Chua, a Yale professor who wrote a bestselling book on parenting called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, was known for instructing female law students who were preparing for interviews with Kavanaugh on ways they could dress to exude a “model-like” femininity to help them win a post in Kavanaugh’s chambers, according to sources.

And you wonder why going to Yale beats out other schools? When you have Amy Chua as adviser, the world's your oyster, if you look like a model.

But how is it that the SCOTUS, led by no less than the Chief Justice himself, came up with such an absurd ruling as the recent Department of Commerce v. New York case in which they decided that it was OK to engage in mind reading regarding an act that was perfectly legal? Shades of the Mueller/Weissmann obstruction theory! I'm very much inclined to agree with Joe DiGenova's explanation--that the case had nothing to do with the law and was simply about John Roberts wanting to poke a finger in Donald Trump's eye. Which says a lot about the passive-aggressive mindset of of men who have spent their entire lives single mindedly pursuing a sinecure in which you get to wear a black robe.

But, now come David B. Rivkin Jr. and Gilson B. Gray to explain that there's a perfectly good way for Trump to give Roberts the kick in the pants he deserves while simultaneously occupying the high ground of constitutional governance: How to Put Citizenship Back in the Census--The 14th Amendment gives the Trump administration the justification it needs.

Here's what the 14th Amendment says:

Briefly Noted: DiGenova, Sperry

Below is a 15 minute interview with Joe DiGenova. The interviewers walk Joe through Bill Barr's interview with Bill Hemmer, and Joe has some pithy comments. His fiercest fire is directed at FBI Director Chris Wray ("an empty suit and a dumbbell"), and he points out that Barr's comments on the "insufficiency" of the explanations he has received about the Russia Hoax point directly, in Barr's trademark understated but very direct way, at Chris Wray, who DiGenova says has withheld "an amazing amount of information from the Hill" and is attempting to do the same with Barr. The only purpose is to cover for James Comey. While Joe doesn't say so in this interview, this can only mean that Rosenstein--and this really goes almost without saying--was a key as well to the coverup that was Team Mueller.

Interestingly, DiGenova also calls out IG Michael Horowitz as having issued an insufficient report on Strzok/Page's bias (when Rosenstein was still his boss). DiGenova calls on Barr to fire Horowitz if he doesn't do better with his FISA report.

Beginning at about the 11 minute mark, DiGenova makes perhaps his most explosive statements. Referring to the latest order issued by Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case, which demands the release of all recordings, DiGenova states:

1. Sullivan's order is referring not only to the Flynn/Kislyak recording but to all relevant recordings, which could include others.

2. Judges in the DC court are beginning to wake up to the fact that Mueller/Weissmann have perpetrated a series of frauds on the court.

3. Judge Contreras--who was recused from the Flynn case and who is on the FISC--is in trouble. He "has a lot of explaining to do" because "he was involved in several other FISA warrants involved in this matter". DiGenova then calls out Chief Justice John Roberts who appoints judges to the FISC--Roberts, he says, needs to explain "what he’s done to fix the mess that has been created with the FISA Court."

Paul Sperry has tweeted about David Laufmann, the former head of DoJ's Counterintelligence Section who was forced to resign, apparently as a result of IG Horowitz's investigations.

Laufman had served since 2014 as the top Justice Department official overseeing espionage investigations, as well as cases involving foreign lobbying and leaks of classified information. That put Laufman in charge of the Hillary Clinton email probe and aspects of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election — an inquiry handed off last May to special counsel Robert Mueller.

It sounds like John Durhams investigation will be revisiting Laufman's role in the Russia Hoax.

Paul Sperry‏ @paulsperry_

BREAKING: I'm told this Trump-hating Obama loyalist and leaker, who helped arrange Hillary's softball FBI interview and supervised Strzok during the Trump-Russia witch hunt, will have his turn in the barrel when the DOJ inspector general's report comes out

 

9:42 PM - 27 May 2019

Is It Time For The Courts To Get Involved In The Russia Hoax?

Back in February of 2018 Hugh Hewitt, law professor and pundit, conducted a fascinating interview on his radio program with Devin Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. As it happens, that interview serves very nicely as an introduction to a development that hasn't received much attention, coming as it does in the leadup to the Midterm elections. That development was reported by John Solomon in The Hill: Silence of 'the lambs': The deafening quietude of the FISA court and John Roberts. Let's begin with the Hewitt/Nunes interview.

Hewitt and Nunes revealed themselves to be very much aware of not only the legal aspects of the Russia Hoax, specifically regarding the Carter Page FISA, but also of the Constitutional aspects. This is entirely understandable, given that all three Constitutional branches of the US Government were either involved in the approval of the Carter Page FISA or are now involved in getting to the bottom of the Russia Hoax--in which the FISA aspects present the most danger of criminal liability.

As the interview progressed, Hewitt raised the very possibility that Solomon now refers to: that of interviewing Chief Justice John Roberts, who appoints the FISA Court (FISC) judges. Hewitt clearly believes that the Judicial Branch has a lot at stake in the Russia Hoax and therefore considers that it would be a good idea for Congress to approach the Courts. The exchange begins with a discussion of the Separation of Powers issues involved in Congress seeking to interview the Chief Justice, but it then moves to the issue that's at the heart of criminality in the Russia Hoax: the apparent effort by the FBI and DoJ to disguise from the FISC the true origins of the material that came to be known as the Steele Dossier. The FBI's subterfuge was embodied in a footnote to the FISA application, and Hewitt gives it as his opinion that the footnote constitutes a "material omission. He also cites the opinion of a Federal judge to that effect as well. Here's the exchange: