Silence Is Golden

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Strzok testified that he can’t testify because FBI lawyer told him not to.

I’ve looked everywhere but can’t find the name of the FBI lawyer who told him not to answer questions.

Was it his mistress, the FBI lawyer he was having an affair with, the one who refused to appear to answer questions?

The name of a lawyer’s client is privileged, but the name of a client’s lawyer is not.   Who told him to clam up?

Joe Doakes

The Russians.

(Blaming the Russians is de regeur these days, isn’t it?)



14 thoughts on “Silence Is Golden

  1. Have you been attending a “write like Trump” workshop, JD? The use of short sentences, non-sequiturs… it’s uncanny.

    Yes, JD, individuals have political biases. Do you?

    Whether a particular individual has a bias is different from whether an entire investigation is tainted. Difficult concept, I know

  2. Any lawyer will tell a client to say NUFFIN.

    And just look at Emery go, commenting like a boss on a supposed similarity between writing styles….who’d you plagiarize that extra bit of wit from, ya 1/4 wit?

  3. It strikes me that the question of why his lawyer was has everything to do with whether those discussions are indeed privileged. My alma mater, Michigan State, appears to have tried to pull the same trick by looping in university counsel with any discussion of Larry Nassar.

  4. Emery knows how incredibly embarrassing the the hearings were for Strzok and the Dems, so he is criticizing writing style?

    Smell the desperation.

  5. Whether a particular individual has a bias is different from whether an entire investigation is tainted. Difficult concept, I know.

    Are you familiar with the concept that when lead investigators are tainted it is reasonable to suspect that the entire investigation might be compromised?

    And it wasn’t just Strzok whom we know was extremely biased, I might remind you. One might be coincidence, two requires investigation and skepticism.

  6. Lisa Page is said to have been much more cooperative than Strzok.
    Given the extreme, openly expressed bias of Strzok, he should not have been allowed near an investigation of either Clinton or Trump. The investigations were as much political as criminal.
    Comey should have either indicted Hillary or suspended his investigation of Her after the first Dem primary in January 2016.
    No investigation of Trump should have begun during the primary season without clear and convincing evidence, that could be released to the public, showing that Trump was guilty of a major crime.
    The FBI has disgraced itself when it became political operator. This is America. We do not have secret police who can investigate whomever they choose to investigate. Our intelligence services are not given veto power over whom we choose to lead us.

  7. Not just two. Remember that Comey illegally leaked his memos–technically classified information–to the press to get Mueller started. So at least three, and probably four including Rosenberg. Then you have to ask the question of why nobody investigating Hilliary’s server raised Hell about the fact that nobody ever got custody of it. Isn’t step 1 in investigating crimes to collect information?

    We have a quorum of scumbags in the FBI/DOJ to where it was possible to choose a whole team of people who wouldn’t openly ask the obvious questions. You saw the same thing with the IRS investigation, the same thing with the Benghazi investigation, same thing with Fast & Furious, etc..

  8. How are they going to prosecute the 12 Russians they just named? (Assuming they were ever able to be brought into a US courtroom.) Seems like the chain of custody of their primary piece of evidence, the actual server, is irreparably broken: i.e. it has not been, and is not even now, in law enforcement control.

    I am not a lawyer, but it seems that everything purportedly from the server logs would be thrown out.

  9. Loren, Putin offered to allow the Mueller team to come to Russia to talk to the 12. Hopefully, they take him up on his offer and get thrown into a Gulag for a few years. Obviously, there are two chances that they come here, slim and none! Call me crazy, but I’m going with none.

  10. There’s no way those 12 Russians will ever be prosecuted. And if they were attempted to be hauled into a court, it will end up being a total fiasco just like Mueller’s last indictment.

    You know that when a prosecutor appoints outside attorneys to handle an on-going case while the investigation is in progress that there’s trouble. And when the prosecution asks for a delay, while the defense is demanding its legally guaranteed right to a speedy trial, you know the prosecutor really wasn’t serious. In this case, Mueller never expected the company to show up and challenge his indictment, and it shows. The entirety of the “discovery” turned over to the defense is 2TB of untranslated Russian social media. Russian social media, in a case where there was supposed to be interference in American elections? And where some of the companies alleged to have meddled weren’t even in existence at the time of the alleged crime? And would Mueller ever get permission to show NSA communications or other data that would connect the Russians to the hacking? HA! They’d sooner let the Russians go than show what the NSA has on the Russians.

    So excuse me while I doubt Mueller filed those first charges as anything other than political cover. And the same goes for this case. Even if they do manage to get one of these Russians in custody, they’ll drop the charges before they’ll step foot in a courtroom where they’d actually have to disclose the evidence against them. You doubt it? Look at what happens in Stingray surveillance cases when defendants demand to see how cell phone monitor actually occurred. If they have to use the Stingray data as evidence, they’ll drop the case before they’ll let the defense see the data.

    Look, Mueller cannot afford to actually bring to trial anyone willing to fight him in court on the hacking charges. Any criminal case that Mueller would bring will be instantly hobbled by the intense unwillingness of the FBI/NSA/ to actually show evidence and detail the chain of custody, and that’s even ignoring the fact that the DNC servers were never searched in a way that would pass muster in a court. Sure, you might get some peripheral pawns who tried to buy influence without registering as a foreign agent that can be indicted without using data from the national security agencies, but as far as what is really alleged to have happened? Nope.

    What we have here is a political happening, nothing more, nothing less. Mueller’s only real outcome will be bit players who take pleas, and a statement that will shift the politics of the country one way or another, but which will necessarily have to be of a “trust me” nature since he can’t really detail the evidence he might be able to assemble against Trump if any exists because of national security concerns. This is why the “lying to investigators” and “obstruction of justice” are Trump’s only practical vulnerabilities, and that’s why he’s avoiding talking to Mueller and why he’s working so hard to destroy Mueller’s creditability.

  11. Having been in IT security and having friends and customers that are currently in that field, I know that every hacker knows how to cover their tracks. Really good ones can make it look like someone else did it, internet framing, if you will.

    With all of the bull crap coming from this “investigation”, I’m thinking that this is at least part of the reason they haven’t shown any evidence.

  12. I agree with Nerdbert, for different reasons.

    Let’s say I’m a Russian defendant charged with hacking the DNC computer. How does the government know I did it? Because some expert claims he tested the computer and found my digital fingerprints on it? Fine, but I have experts, too. I’m entitled to have my experts test the computer, to verify the government’s expert’s findings. I’m entitled to have my Russian Government experts review every file on the DNC computer. Why not? I supposedly hacked it already, so there’s no secrets on it to hide from me, right?

    The DNC wouldn’t let OUR OWN government see the computer but they’re just going to hand it to my Russian computer experts? Not a chance. And Mueller knows it. Which means he doesn’t seriously intend to take the case to trial. It’s a political bluff and the Russians should call him on it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.