Briefly Noted: Will Jeffrey Epstein Get Bail?

If someone tries to get you to bet that Epstein will be released on bail--don't do it. Will Chamberlain explains it all, and as a bonus explains why the non-prosecution agreement in Florida won't stop the SDNY from prosecuting Epstein

Right off the bat its clear why SDNY thinks it can pick up the baton

Alleging that Epstein trafficked girls in New York as well as Florida.

Another fascinating tidbit - SDNY argues against bail due to a high risk of witness tampering/obstruction of justice.

Evidence? Well, in the prior case, Epstein proffered a plea to precisely those charges! 

Also, when it comes to the actual laws on bail, it's not good for Epstein: bail is presumed to be inappropriate when someone is charged with a sex trafficking offense. 

Pretty compelling argument against Jeffrey Epstein getting bail

Yeah that non-prosecution agreement in Florida isn't going to save Jeffrey Epstein.

Second Circuit law is pretty clear on the question 

FYI - this bail memorandum from SDNY is in many ways more enlightening than the indictment:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184559-U-S-v-Jeffrey-Epstein-19-Cr-490-RMB-Government.html

UPDATED: OIG, OPR, And The Epstein Case

Readers may have noticed references to internal disciplinary matters at DoJ (including the FBI) being handled by both OIG under current IG Michael Horowitz as well as OPR (the Office of Professional Responsibility). I've never looked into the division of responsibilities between the two offices before, but we've seen this in the Russia Hoax and it has arisen once more in the Epstein Case. Wikipedia has a succinct explanation of the division of responsibilities--OPR investigates DoJ attorneys, OIG investigates the peons, non-attorneys:

The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is part of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) responsible for investigating attorneys employed by the DOJ who have been accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions. The OPR promulgates independent standards of ethical and criminal conduct for DOJ attorneys, while the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has jurisdiction of non-attorney DOJ employees. Corey Amundson became the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility in September, 2018.

The important point is this: OIG, while part of the DoJ, has an independent basis in federal law. OPR has no statutorily independent basis. That doesn't mean that OIG can't be pressured or interfered with by an AG or his DAG (think: Rod Rosenstein), but the OIG has a stronger ground for independent action that steps on political toes than does OPR. Looking forward, the names of Mueller and his entire team of attorneys arise. This helps explain the regular calls for the investigation of the Russia Hoax to be turned over to a US Attorney who can empanel a Grand Jury. Oh, wait--John Durham!

This division has long been a source of of accusations of favorable/lenient treatment of attorneys, often done secretly, i.e., with no public release of findings. This was famously the case with Andrew Weissmann, as recounted by Sidney Powell (Michael Flynn's new lawyer, author of Licensed To Lie). This also suggests that Bruce Ohr's case, for example, is being handled by OPR, as would then probably be the case with all the other DoJ attorneys (prominently David Laufmann and Rod Rosenstein) involved in the Russia Case, including FBI attorneys such as James Baker, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Trisha Anderson, Lisa Page, and quite a few more. I may be missing some jurisdictional nuances here, but we need to be aware of this.

Briefly Noted: Trump Judge To Hear Trump Tax Returns Case

Darren Samuelsohn at Politico reports:

NEW: House Democrats’ lawsuit to get Trump’s tax returns just got random assignment to a Trump-appointed federal judge in DC: Trevor McFadden.

 You can read about McFadden here, but here's his educational background:

Wheaton College (BA)
University of Virginia School of Law (JD)

It's also claimed that McFadden donated to the Trump campaign.

UPDATED: What Might Come Of The Epstein Case?

I'll admit very frankly that, while I've read a certain amount about the Jeffrey Epstein case, I've shied away from writing about it for the simple reason that I don't want to get dragged down into the salacious details. Because I'm a bit squeamish about dwelling on such matters. Nevertheless, Epstein's arrest by federal authorities (actually, a joint FBI/NYPD task force) in the Southern District of NY--even as the US Attorney in Miami continues to resist reopening the case, and coming as it does in the runup to the 2020 elections as well as in the aftermath of the Mueller Dossier--raises unavoidable speculation. Fortunately I've come across an article that addresses some of these issues without the salacious details. The article is by Monica Showalter, So the Epstein bust means Democratic 'faves' may roll out of the woodwork? and it may prove a useful jumping off point for speculation on what to look for going forward.

As we'll see, Showalter's title is a reference to a tweet by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, Christine, but let's first glance at Showalter's first paragraph:

The bust of Bill Clinton's buddy and airplane-mate Jeffrey Epstein, monickered by Forbes as "Palm Beach pervert," for sex trafficking in underage girls, is a complex one. The news is speculative about whether Epstein was being protected by Robert Mueller's special counsel's office, and why the Department of Justice acted now, given that he's been problematic for years. There's also his role as a bigfoot Democrat donor, same as Ed Buck and other perverts who've financed the Democrats. A while back, I made a list here. But one thing's pretty clear, based on a tweet by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine: Democrats knew.

And here's what Christine Pelosi tweeted:

"This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may — whether on Republicans or Democrats."

The first point, which most readers are no doubt already familiar with, is that when Christine Pelosi refers to "some of our faves" she's referring directly to the same person Showalter singles out: Bill Clinton. The reason is twofold. First, Clinton ditched the Secret Service 26 times to take trips to Epstein's private island on his private jet--the Lolita Express. Secondly, the fact that Epstein was "a bigfoot Democrat donor" is highly suggestive of just who Epstein's chosen companions were. Christine Pelosi says that the chips should be allowed to "fall where they may--whether on Republicans or Democrats." But she gives the game away with her sole reference to "faves." Coming from Pelosi's daughter that can only mean "Democrats." There is no such pointed reference to Republicans, no warning that Republicans are likely to be complicit.

Further, Showalter raises a shrewd point:

Back Sunday

Will enable comments then.

Can We Handle The Looming Social Crisis?

What IS the looming social crisis? Well, it turns out that young people are increasingly pushing back against the LGBTQwerty agenda. That's what we learn from a Harris poll sponsored by GLAAD (the annual Accelerating Acceptance report). According to John Gerzema, the CEO of The Harris Poll, these findings are “very alarming” and could “signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.” Here are the alarming stats in a nutshell, so to speak:

the number of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 who are “comfortable interacting with LGBTQ people” dropped from 53% in 2017 to 45% in 2018, which is already a decrease from 63% in 2016. 

What could possibly be causing this? According to Sarah Kate Ellis, GLAAD president and CEO, the problem stems from the younger generation "coming into contact with more LGBTQ people, particularly individuals who are non-binary and simply don’t identify as lesbian or gay." Go figure! Ellis theorizes that

‘This newness they are experiencing could be leading to this erosion. It’s a newness that takes time for people to understand. Our job is to educate about non-conformity,’

On the other hand, it just might be that normals are uncomfortable with the results when America's fuzzy kinda libertarianism--America's default public "philosophy"--is pushed to its limits. Or maybe when normals find out that, actually, there may not be any real limits at all when that fuzzy kinda libertarianism is taken seriously. As Jonathon Van Maren at Lifesitenews writes, Americans reflexively thing the government should "stay out of people's sex lives," but when that notion is adopted as a legal principle those same people are discovering they don't like the consequences so much. Young people turn out to be the unfortunate guinea pigs upon whom the muddled middle in America is inflicting the consequences of their confusion:

In other words, the LGBTQ movement may have pushed the culture too far. Many people accept the idea that the government should stay out of people’s sex lives. A majority of Americans also came to believe, over the past two decades, that gay people should be permitted to get "married" (a process described incisively by Darel Paul in his 2018 book From Tolerance to Equality: How the Elites Brought America to Same-Sex Marriage.) But most people simply do not believe that women can have penises, that men can get pregnant, or that gender is fluid. The simple fact is that to most people, “non-binary” and other ever-shifting and multiplying categories are simply nonsense. 

Young people also have a front-row seat to the chaos the LGBTQ movement is wreaking on their schools. Biological males in the girl’s bathroom, biological males destroying the female competition at women’s sporting events, the utter confusion of transgenderism, transition, and the LGBTQ indoctrination—they have lived these things, and it is notable that much of the pushback to this agenda is coming from young people, not from adults. It is teenage girls who are suing their schools over bathroom privacy and biological males in female sports competitions. Their childhoods are being turned into battlefields in the culture wars, and many of them are profoundly unhappy with this. 

... LGBT activists are attempting to use an entire generation as the guinea pigs in a massive social experiment with gender fluidity and sexuality, and many of those guinea pigs, as GLAAD’s own polling indicates, are very unhappy with it. I only hope that the pushback to the LGBTQ agenda will strengthen, persevere, and herald a return to sanity.

This widespread "discomfort" is one of the reasons that Trump surprised the nation in 2016. We have over a year yet to go before the next election, and the Dems are revealing how radical they really are, how little they care for normals. This will be interesting.

My view? I think American can handle this kind of crisis, the crisis of increasing discomfort.

UPDATE: I kinda liked this cartoon--it expresses what sundance calls the Uniparty:

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:

Mueller And The FISA MoU Revisited

It seems like a long time ago, but it was only May 25, 2019, that I published a fairly detailed summary of what was known about the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the FBI and the CIA that the two agencies entered into in 2012. By the terms of the MoU the FBI gave the CIA permission to FBI resources to access NSA databases, opening up CIA access to information on Americans within the US. In other words, the MoU allowed the CIA--using private contractors--to "spy on" (h/t AG Bill Barr) Americans within the US, and most people would suppose that this was the FBI conducting their legitimate counterintelligence (CI) business. Of course, the terms of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) forbade the CIA from accessing such data. This occurred while Robert Mueller was Director FBI. At CIA this would have happened either under Acting Director Mike Morrell or Director David Petraeus. The point is that this likely happened in time for the Presidential election of 2012, facilitating--and here's that word again--"spying" on the Romney campaign. Thus, I titled that post Obama Almost Certainly Spied On Willard. I'll be republishing that post, below--for a reason.

As I've mentioned several times, I've been ploughing through the archives of articles on the Russia Hoax by J. E. Dyer. Last night I came across one that contained a reference to a visit Robert Mueller made to the White House in April, 2016, nearly three years after leaving the FBI. While Dyer doesn't relate Mueller's visit directly to the MoU--in fact she frankly states that the visit is a bit of a mystery--I believe that a nexus with the MoU is the easiest way to make sense of that visit. The nature of the MoU and the role that it plays in explaining the full extent of Obama's domestic spying (with Mueller's cooperation) was the subject of the post I just linked. I drew heavily on research published at CTH in that post, but here I intend to add that one crucial explanatory element that Dyer mentions--Mueller's visit to the White House. (Dyer gives credit to "Katica", which is where I first saw this visit mentioned.)

So, below, I'll append the linked post so that all the details will be in one spot, but to lead up to that I'll provide details regarding Mueller's visit to the White House. That visit will be placed within a timeline, but the timeline itself is quite simple, consisting of only three dates--although a few contextualizing dates will be added. So, let's begin.

We've already seen that the MoU between the FBI and the CIA was entered into in 2012. Details on the legal significance of this MoU can be found below. For our purposes, at this point, just bear in mind (as FISC Chief Judge Rosemary Collyer noted) that an MoU that violates the law is simply ... illegal. If FISA forbade CIA access to this type of information, Robert Mueller had no authority to allow the CIA to use FBI resources to circumvent the provisions of FISA. The existence of this MoU came to Judge Collyer's attention on March 9, 2016, as a result of oversight by "DoJ personnel conducting a minimization review"--a review for compliance with minimization rules that are a key part of FISA. Apparently the DoJ oversight personnel found a large number of violations and, when they pressed the FBI for an explanation, discovered that there was more going on than simple bureaucratic mistakes. Here is how Judge Collyer describes the beginning of the inquiry that she became a key part of:

Don't Forget About Hillary's Emails

Holman Jenkins at the WSJ offers an instructive reminder today--behind the usual subscription wall: What Barr Should Declassify--Release the secret inspector-general report on the Hillary Clinton email case.

Jenkins begins by noting that, with Bill Barr having been given extensive declassification authority, most of the calls for declass are focused on the FBI's anti-Trump activity. However, in Jenkins' view it is at least equally important to declass the remaining classified documents from OIG's investigation of the FBI's dubious intervention in the Hillary Email investigation.

Here's Jenkins setting out what is at issue--just suspend belief regarding his statement that Comey did it all on his sole initiative:

Remind yourself what happened: James Comey, on his sole initiative, held a press conference to announce that, though Mrs. Clinton had behaved improperly, she did not merit prosecution. Except it wasn’t his decision to make: It was the Justice Department’s.

In other words, Comey--the head of the FBI, a purely investigative agency with no authority to make prosecutorial decisions--was ... making a prosecutorial decision. And prosecutorial decisions are the sole province of the DoJ. Of course, no complaints came from DoJ, so one assumes--I certainly do--that Comey's performance was undertaken with the full approval and, probably, the active encouragement of then AG Loretta Lynch.

But then comes the crux, for declass purposes:

Deripaska Could Spell Big Trouble For The FBI--And Team Mueller

John Solomon apparently decided to come out with his latest bombshell before the 4th of July holiday. It's in the Hill tonight, based on Solomon's interview of Oleg Deripaska: Russian oligarch's story could spell trouble for Team Mueller.

Deripaska, of course, is the Russian former aluminum magnate and close associate of Vladimir Putin. Deripaska's past connections to the FBI, Christopher Steele, and Bruce Ohr are fairly well known. Basically, during the years 2008-2009 the FBI under then Director Robert Mueller approached Deripaska for assistance in trying to obtain the release of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who was being detained in Iran. Deripaska spent upwards of $20 million of his own money in the attempt, which was ultimately unsuccessful. Deripaska also had business dealings with Paul Manafort, but had fallen out with him.

Deripaska's business and legal affairs are too complicated to go into in detail at this time. Briefly, however, in the period leading up to the 2016 election Deripaska was seeking to regularize his visa situation to allow him to travel more freely to the US. He was employing Chris Steele and a lawyer named Adam Waldman in that effort, and Waldman was also representing Julian Assange as well as serving as a go between among these players for Dem senator Mark Warner. Bruce Ohr was handling the Deripaska matter at DoJ. Complicated yet? You can get the details in this article by Jeff Carlson: Manafort’s Deripaska Connections and Waldman’s Role in the Assange Negotiations.

For our purposes, what's important is that the FBI attempted to use Deripaska's visa situation to obtain information from him, and to that end the FBI contacted Deripaska twice during the period 2015-2016. The 2016 contact took place in September, which means that it took place a month or so after Crossfire Hurrican was opened (July 31, 2016) and a month or so before the FBI obtained its FISA on Carter Page--late October, 2016. Here's Solomon's account of what Deripaska told him about that interview:

In a wide-ranging interview with me, Deripaska confirmed a story told to me more than a year ago by law enforcement sources: He was indeed interviewed by FBI agents in September 2016 during the early Russia probe, and he told them he strongly doubted the bureau’s theory that the Trump campaign, through Manafort, was colluding with Moscow to hijack the 2016 election.

Will Mueller's Testimony Cause The Sky To Fall?

Short answer: No. Longer answer ...

When we first heard--just a week ago--that Robert Mueller would be testifying before a “joint panel” of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, on July 17th, my initial reaction was twofold:

1. This was probably prompted by the realization that Barr and Durham are focusing very strongly on the Intelligence Community Assessment that John Brennan manufactured in order to support the Russia Hoax narrative, and the need to offer some sort of support for that narrative, weak as it was shown to be by the Mueller Dossier itself; and

2. The decision to drag Mueller out before the public eye once again--after his widely panned no-questions press conference--was an expression of Dem desperation in the face of the Barr DoJ's new found effectiveness.

In my view, Adam Schiff gave the game away with his tweet announcing the development:

Robert Mueller has agreed to testify before Congress pursuant to subpoena. 

Russia attacked our democracy to help Trump win. Trump welcomed and used that help. As Mueller said, that should concern every American. 

And now, every American will get to hear directly from Mueller.

The bolded portion is a capsulized version of the whole Russia Hoax of "collusion," precisely what the Mueller Dossier said it couldn't find. As I said at the time:

Sheer desperation. Mueller's appearance will be staged to defend the ICA narrative of the Russia Hoax, to stave off the looming disaster just a bit longer. But this isn't going to stop Barr and Durham. Mueller better mind how he goes.

I remain of that opinion but, surprisingly, a few commentators expressed alarm. For example the husband/wife duo of Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing--experienced inside DC players--expressed the view that, while Mueller would probably avoid saying anything much beyond "read the report" in his public testimony, Andrew Weissmann in the closed door session would do real "damage" to the President and would probably "lie" in order to do that damage.

Where We're Headed

I'm on the run this morning, but I'd like to recommend two articles I've just read. 

In a comment yesterday I maintained that the Russia Hoax isn't about financial corruption primarily. That is always a component, of course, when the Left is involved in something, but it really does come down to ideology. Compare these two article and see if you see how they hang together.

The first is by Rod Dreher (NeverTrumper): Seminary Confidential. It's basically a long email from a student at an elite Protestant seminary in which the student describes the state of intellectuality there. In brief, it's "social justice with a thin veneer of Jesus." It's much more detailed, and well worth reading.

The second is by Thomas Lifson, describing Antifa's activities in Portland: Left wing thuggery: The battle lines are being drawn in Portland, OR. Here there's no veneer of Jesus, but I think it hangs together. For example ...

The student writes regarding the Marxist form of "Christianity", a "new religion" "with a thin veneer of Jesus":

This represents the instrumentalization of Christianity to social justice ends. Routinely, the discussion of Christianity’s value comes down to “can Christianity help liberate me and others who share my identity from oppressors?” Christianity is not good because it is true; Christianity is adopted if it is useful.

Lifson writes:

My impression is that the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is heavily staffed with left wingers who see African-Americans and sexual minorities as the only legitimate objects of their protection. They need to be tasked with protecting the rights of all Americans, and if they refuse, they need to be replaced. It’s time to focus on an urgent need to ensure peaceful politics before the streets get even bloodier. 

Antifa is part of an interstate conspiracy to deny civil rights to conservatives. Thanks to the civil rights movement, there are established procedures for dealing with such malign groups. It’s time to start using those tools.

Do you see how Antifa activisim flows from the "theology" (really, ideology) that the student is being indoctrinated with at this seminary? Is it such a stretch to justify violence as the legitimate expression of the grievances of the oppressed--as defined by the Left?