Mediaboss Marketing

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton trolled Steve Bannon for his indictment on charges of contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a subpoena requesting testimony and evidence concerning the 6 January insurrection.

Jennifer Hayden tweeted on 12 November: You know who is not going to jail and has never been indicted for anything? Hope you have a great weekend Hillary Clinton.

Thanks, it was quite restful, the former top US diplomat responded.

The former New York senator and first lady has become a prolific presence on Twitter and has gained attention in the past for her jabs on the platform.

As soon as it became clear that the Democrats would take the Senate following two run-off elections in Georgia in January, Ms Clinton tweeted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to note the Republicans demotion from leading the majority.

In the middle of her 2016 presidential campaign battle with then-candidate Donald Trump, she tweeted: Delete your account.

She returned to the tweet almost five years later when Mr Trump was suspended from Twitter after the 6 January Capitol riot, simply adding a checkmark to the tweet.

Ms Clintons use of a private email during her time as secretary of state haunted her during the 2016 campaign. The story stayed in the news because of an FBI investigation into the emails.

Mr Trump beat Ms Clinton in the 2016 election shortly after then-FBI Director James Comey reopened the investigation.

When Mr Comey tweeted in August of 2020, We need more women in office. VP and Virginia governor are good next steps, Ms Clinton simply responded with a gif of herself from Between Two Ferns, the mock talk show.

Critics of Mr Comey, including Ms Clinton, have partly blamed her 2016 loss on the renewed focus on the email investigation, which found that the secretary shouldnt be criminally charged.

In October 2019, she tweeted a letter mocking Mr Trump, whom she called a corrupt human tornado around the same time.

More here:
Hillary Clinton mocks Steve Bannon: You know who hasnt been indicted - The Independent

Former U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous died Sunday at the age of 74. Porteous, who served a decade on Louisianas 24th Judicial District Court before being appointed as a federal judge by then-President Bill Clinton in 1994, was impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from the bench in 2010.

Porteous was the most recent federal official removed from office following a conviction on articles of impeachment, and only the eighth judge ever to be removed from office. His notoriety, however, increased after his own impeachment first as Hillary Clinton became the frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election and later as Donald Trump was impeached.

Porteous was impeached after Congress conducted a lengthy investigation and concluded that he had been involved in corruption, committed perjury, and accepted bribes from lawyers practicing in his court. Porteous also attempted to conceal his sordid past during the confirmation process.

Impeachment proceedings against Porteous were swift and fierce. The House of Representatives raised four Articles of Impeachment against him for (1) engaging in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge; (2) engaging in a longstanding pattern of corrupt conduct that demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court Judge; (3) knowingly and intentionally making false statements, under penalty of perjury, related to his personal bankruptcy filing and violating a bankruptcy court order; and (4) knowingly made material false statements about his past to both the United States Senate and to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to obtain the office of United States District Court Judge.

Senate President pro temporeDaniel Inouyepresided over the trial, and would-be Trump impeachment critic Jonathan Turley put forth Porteous defense.

Porteous was unanimously convicted by the Senate on the first article by a vote of 96-0. He was removed from office on that ground before later being convicted on the three other articles by votes of 69-27, 90-6, and 94-2, respectively. Porteous was disqualified from ever holding federal office, although Turley had already announced that his client would resign from the federal bench if not officially disqualified.

The Porteous impeachment became a major point of public discussion in 2016. As Law&Crime noted at the time, speculation ran rampant that Hillary Clinton might face an immediate impeachment if she won the presidency. Impeachment experts were skeptical, however, as to the legality of any proceeding that centered on Clintons inappropriate email use and potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, as the critical events almost entirely predated her possible ascension to the presidency. By contrast, experts generally agreed, impeachment is a tool to be used solely for malfeasance committed while a person is in office.

Porteous impeachment, therefore, became a near-match for what Hillary Clinton critics were attempting. Porteous misdeeds did occur while he was a state court judge before he was appointed to a federal bench by Bill Clinton. Porteous confirmation process, however, was also central to his impeachment, as the entire process was found to have been tainted with fraud. By contrast, the Clinton email scandal was perhaps as public as any scandal ever has been.

After Donald Trump took office, talk of impeachment also began immediately. The same issue, however, arose: timing. Many pointed to Trumps misdeeds prior to his presidency as potential fodder for impeachment, but the same legal arguments against pre-office impeachment were raised. To those arguments, the Porteous impeachment stood as decade-old evidence that there is at least some precedent for such action. Again, though, Porteous cover-up during his confirmation hearing was an important distinction.

Porteouss conviction by the Senate ended his legal career. His funeral mass is scheduled to take place on Thursday at noon in Metairie, Louisiana.

[screengrab via C-Span]

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
Impeached Federal Judge, Whose Removal from Office Was Fodder for Critics of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Dies at 74 - Law & Crime

WASHINGTON Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ranking member of the Senate JudiciaryCommittee, took the FBI to task and is demanding records relating to the searchwarrant execution at the home of Project Veritas founder James OKeefe andagainst other employees.

TheDepartments heavy-handed treatment of Project Veritas is notably differentfrom the kid-glove and deferential treatment given to Hillary Clinton and herstaff during its investigation into her mishandling of highly classifiedinformation, Grassley wrote.

Giventhe brazen and inconsistent standards employed by the Department [of Justice]against Project Veritas, Grassley is asking for all records relating to theFBIs compliance with relevant regulations and procedures governing the acquisitionof Project Veritas information in light of the privileged and whistleblowerinformation at issue, as well as copies of all search warrants and supportingdocumentation.

Followingthe publication of information from apparently privileged documents by the NewYork Times, the senator asks whether the FBI or Justice Department has openedany leak investigations.

Finally,Grassley presses the FBI and Justice Department to explain the two systems ofjustice embodied by the difference in approaches toward Project Veritas and subjectsin prior investigations, specifically the Clinton investigation.

November 17, 2021

VIA ELECTRONICTRANSMISSION

TheHonorable Merrick Garland

AttorneyGeneral

Departmentof Justice

TheHonorable Christopher Wray

Director

FederalBureau of Investigation

DearAttorney General Garland and Director Wray:

OnNovember 6, 2021, the FBI executed a search warrant and raided the home ofJames OKeefe, the founder of Project Veritas, relating to the alleged theft ofAshley Bidens diary. During the course of the dawn raid, the FBI seized cellphones and began extracting data that could have included donor information,privileged communications with lawyers and confidential whistleblowers withingovernment. In light of the governments conduct, the District Court for theSouthern District of New York temporarily halted the governments search whileconsidering whether to appoint a Special Master to ensure privileged andconfidential information is protected from improper government access.

Specifically,the letters only permitted the FBI to review email archives within a limiteddate range, June 1, 2014, and before February 1, 2015, and so long as thoseemails were sent or received from Secretary Clintons four email addressesduring her tenure as Secretary of State.

Theletters also provided that the FBI would destroy any records which it retrievedthat were not turned over to the investigatory team. Further, the lettersmemorialized the FBIs agreement to destroy the laptops that contained theinformation to be searched. This arrangement is simply astonishing given thelikelihood that evidence on the laptops were of interest to congressionalinvestigators.

Basedon reports, the Department has clearly treated these two fact patterns muchdifferently. On the one hand with respect to Project Veritas an organizationthat the Department has said is subject to the federal governmentsinvestigative power in limited circumstances and under careful scrutiny the Departmentand FBI have engaged the heavy hand of the federal government against it. Thisis in contrast to the Clinton investigation, where the Department and FBIproceeded with the softest touch possible even though the individuals underscrutiny werent journalists and the matter involved mishandling of highlyclassified national security information. Moreover, during the Clintoninvestigation, the governments search of records was subject to extensivecommunications between private counsel and government counsel to determine inadvance of any review the scope of the information to be searched, whichstands in stark contrast to the governments reported treatment against ProjectVeritas.

Thereported fact pattern appears to implicate the Department and the FBI, yetagain, in serious wrongdoing. It is critical that Department or FBI employeeswho participated in any misconduct in this case are not able to escapeaccountability, further underscoring the need for testimonial subpoenaauthority in light of the general practice of employees resigning before theycan be interviewed.

Giventhe brazen and inconsistent standards employed by the Department againstProject Veritas and in order to better understand the Departments and FBIsdecision-making process in this matter, please answer the following no laterthan December 1, 2021:

2.Pleaseprovide all search warrants and supporting documentation used to searchcellphones and for physical searches of the homes of Project Veritas employees.

3.Hasthe Department or FBI opened any leak investigation(s) with respect to theprovision of records from the case to the news media? If not, why not?

4.Withrespect to the way the Department and FBI handled the Clinton investigation andProject Veritas, please explain why the Department and FBI did not affordProject Veritas the same treatment that it afforded Cheryl Mills and HeatherSamuelson.

Thankyou for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

-30-

More:
Grassley Demands Answers in DOJ's and FBI's Heavy-Handed Targeting of Project Veritas Personnel - Senator Chuck Grassley

On Monday afternoon, Steve Bannon confidently strolled out of a federal courthouse, in Washington, D.C., after surrendering to face charges of contempt of Congress. Released on his own recognizance, he was accompanied by an entourage that live-streamed his every move on Gettr, a social-media platform created by Donald Trumps supporters. Immediately surrounded by two dozen reporters and camera crews, Bannon declared himself a victim of the illegitimate Biden regime; called for the fall of the Chinese Communist Party; predicted that congressional investigators would fail, as Hillary Clinton had in 2016; and said that, in refusing to speak to the House select committee investigating the events of January 6th, he was fighting for free speech. Bannon also invoked a conspiracy theory that career civil servants in Washington secretly plot against him, Trump, and other Republican officials, saying, If the administrative state wants to take me on, bring it on. Were here to fight this. Were going to go on offense. Then, encircled by lawyers, bodyguards, and the press, he made his way under a canopy of orange autumn foliage to Constitution Avenue, where a black S.U.V. was parked. A handful of anti-Trump demonstrators shouted liar, scumbag, dirtbag walking, and, repeatedly, traitor. Before stepping into the car, Bannon thanked the journalists, saying, Really appreciate you guys coming out today. A few hundred yards away, a flag fluttered on top of the U.S. Capitol.

Bannons statements, his demeanor, and his social-media live streaming were no surprise. He was employing the same circus-like tactics that date back to his tenure as Trumps campaign chief, in 2016, and as White House strategist, in 2017. He appeared, above all, to be enjoying himself. Both before and after surrendering to the court, Bannon signalled that he planned to use the proceedings to cement his standing among Trump supporters. On Capitol Hill, some Democrats seemed satisfied, too. A staffer told me that Bannons defiance showed that the groups that tried to overturn the 2020 election are still active. The threat to democracy continues. It hasnt gone away, the staffer said. Were seeing it in real time.

The question, of course, is how the public will see the Bannon case. American democracy is entering a strange and perilous period. The U.S. Capitol has come under attack in the past. In 1814, when the building was still under construction, British forces set fire to it. In 1954, supporters of independence for Puerto Rico fired pistols onto the House floor from the public gallery, wounding five members of Congress. And, in 1971, the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for detonating a bomb, which heavily damaged the building, in an effort to force an end to the Vietnam War.

The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol is different, because it was conducted by backers of a sitting U.S. President who refusedand continues to refuseto accept the results of the election that removed him from power. Last week, the ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl released audio of a March interview with Trump in which the former President defended his demands that Mike Pence reverse the results of the 2020 election. Asked if he ever feared for his Vice-Presidents safety, as rioters chanted Hang Mike Pence, Trump replied no, repeated his false claims that the election was stolen, and blamed Pence for the violence. Its common sense, Jon, Trump said. How can you pass on a fraudulent vote to Congress? How can you do that? A second Democratic Hill staffer said that such statements show why it is vital for the select committee to aggressively investigate the events of January 6th. What choice is there? the staffer asked. They tried to kill the Vice-President of the United States.

Legal experts say that Bannons case presents a dilemma for CarlNichols, the federal judge hearing it. Bannon and other Trump allies who have declined to testify appear to be betting that Republicans will win control of the House in next years midterm elections. The House resolution that established the select committee expires when the current congressional term ends, on January 3, 2023. So there is a real sense of urgency, the first Democratic staffer said.

David Laufman, a former senior Justice Department official and federal prosecutor, told me that the length of federal criminal proceedings varies widely, but it would not be unusual for the Bannon case, from hearings to trial to possible sentencing, to take up to a year. Nichols, who is also overseeing the trials of accused January 6th rioters, can choose to accelerate the timetable of Bannons case if he decides that there is a substantial federal interest in doing so. At the same time, he must make it abundantly clear that Bannon will get a fair trial and be treated like any other American defendant; as Bannon demonstrated on Monday, he will eagerly seize upon anything to suggest that he is being prosecuted because of his political views.

One of Bannons first statements after he left the courthouse on Monday seemed to be directed to supporters watching his live stream. Dont ever let them take you off message, he said. As Bannons case plays out in the months ahead, Americans will have to decide whether his theatrics are a threat to democracy, performative branding, or a mix of both. Laufman, the former federal prosecutor, said that there is a substantial federal interest in Bannons case proceeding as quickly as possible. He asked, What can be of greater interest than an attack on the heart of democracy in the United States?

Read this article:
How Big a Threat Is Steve Bannon? - The New Yorker

The Washington, D.C.-based Federal Bureau of Investigation has lost all credibility as a disinterested investigatory agency. Now we learn from a whistleblower that the agency was allegedly investigating moms and dads worried about the teaching of critical race theory in their kids' schools.

In truth, since 2015, the FBI has been constantly in the news - and mostly in a negative and constitutionally disturbing light.

The fired former Director James Comey injected himself into the 2016 political race by constantly editorializing on his ongoing investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton's email leaks.

In a bizarre twist, the public learned later that Comey had allowed Hillary Clinton's own private computer contractor - CrowdStrike - to run the investigation of the hack. The private firm was allowed to keep possession of pertinent hard drives central to the investigation. How odd that CrowdStrike's point man was Shawn Henry, a former high-ranking FBI employee.

During the Robert Mueller special investigation, the FBI implausibly claimed it had no idea how requested information on FBI cell phones had mysteriously disappeared.

It was also under Comey's directorship that the FBI submitted inaccurate requests for warrants to a FISA court. Elements of one affidavit to surveil Trump supporter Carter Page were forged by FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who later pleaded guilty to a felony.

The FBI hired the disreputable ex-British spy Christopher Steele as a contractor, while he was peddling his fantasy - the Clinton-bought dossier - to Obama government officials and the media.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker was reportedly the subject of a federal investigation. He allegedly conducted prominent meetings both with media outlets that later leaked lurid tales from the Steele dossier. He also met repeatedly with the now-indicted Perkins Coe attorney Michael Sussman.

Comey himself, through third-party intermediaries, leaked to the media his own confidential memos detailing private meetings with President Trump. His assurances both to Congress and to Trump that the president was not the current subject of FBI investigations were either misleading or outright lies.

In sworn testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, Comey on some 245 occasions claimed he could not remember or had no knowledge of key elements of his own "Russian Collusion" investigation.

Comey's replacement, acting FBI director Andrew McCabe, was fired for leaking sensitive information to the media. He then lied on at least three occasions about his role to federal attorneys and his own FBI investigators.

McCabe is now a paid CNN consultant who often has offered misleading information on the Russian collusion hoax that he helped promulgate.

Former FBI director and special counsel Robert Mueller conducted a 22-month, $40 million wild goose chase after some mythical "Russian Collusion" plot. When called before Congress, Mueller claimed he had little or no knowledge about Fusion GPS or the Steele Dossier - the twin sources that birthed the entire collusion hoax.

FBI lawyer Lisa Page was removed from Mueller's investigation, along with her paramour FBI investigator Peter Strzok. Both misused FBI communications, revealing their pro-Clinton biases during their investigations of "Russian collusion," while hiding their own unprofessional relationship.

Mueller himself staggered their firings and delayed explanations about why they were let go from his investigation team.

When the FBI arrested pro-Trump activist Roger Stone, it did so with a huge quasi-swat team - to the tipped-off and lurking CNN reporters.

The FBI repeated such politicized performance art recently when they stormed the home of Project Veritas director James O'Keefe. The agency confiscated his electronic devices on the grounds that he had knowledge of the contents of the allegedly lurid missing diary of Joe Biden's daughter. The FBI - an apparent retrieval service of lost Biden family embarrassments - also did not disclose that it had possession of Hunter Biden's laptop at a time when the media was erroneously declaring the computer inauthentic.

O'Keefe was accosted in the pre-morning hours by a crowd of FBI agents, wielding a battering ram, who pushed him out of his home in his underwear.

The time and location of the FBI raid, as in the Stone case, were leaked to the media that cheered the raid shortly after it was conducted. A federal judge recently stopped the FBI's ongoing monitoring of O'Keefe's communications.

Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins recently detailed other FBI lapses such as downplaying evidence that former Olympic gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was a known and chronic molester of teenage gymnasts.

The agency also extended its witch hunt against the innocent researcher wrongly accused of involvement in the anthrax attacks of 2001.

One could add to such misadventures the mysterious leadership roles of at least 12 FBI informants in the harebrained kidnapping scheme of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

We can also cite the agency's inability to follow up on clear information about the dangers posed by criminals as diverse as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Boston Marathon bombers, and the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

For its own moral and practical survival, the FBI should be given one last chance at redemption by moving to the nation's heartland - perhaps Kansas - far away from the political and media tentacles that have so deeply squeezed and corrupted it.

(C)2021 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Case for Trump. You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

Originally posted here:
Can the FBI Be Salvaged? - RealClearPolitics