Graham Platner Tells the NYT That 'Susan Collins Voted to Send Him to...
Mother Jones, Ro Khanna, and Code Pink? Stephen Miller Blasts Thomas Massie's Bizarre...
Seth Abramson Says Bush v. Gore Would Like a Word After SCOTUS Passes...
Happy Biden Family? Try '10% for the Big Guy,' Crack Pipes, and the...
Daily Mail: Gov. Ron DeSantis Uses Controversial Word to Describe Rep. Who Staged...
Bill Kristol Hits Rock Bottom: Now Simping for Socialist Zohran Mamdani Over Trump
ABC News: Kash Patel Facing 'New' Controversy Over Snorkeling Excursion at Most Hallowed...
Yes, Bill Kristol, I KNOW You're a Democrat; You're Also an Insufferable, Weeping...
Hasan Piker’s Bigotry Derails Interview as He Berates Nithya Raman Over Israel’s Right...
Hakeem Jeffries Tries to Pin the Dems' Virginia Backfire on 'Far Right SCOTUS...
NYT Reporter Runs to CNN's Kaitlan Collins After Trump 'Attacks' Him on Air...
BBC: Man Drives Car Into Pedestrians in Italy Before Trying to Stab Them
Trust the Experts! Here's Another '10 Years Until...' Climate Change Fear Mongering Fail...
What Ultra-Processed Food Hides Inside Your Muscles
Dem Dorothy McAuliffe Suspends Campaign for House Seat That Doesn't Exist and Blames...

Peter Strzok (yes, that one) laments 'the corrupt transformation of our criminal justice system' after Kevin Clinesmith pleads guilty

These are dark times for the cause of justice. At least according to Peter Strzok:

Advertisement

What, exactly, is Strzok’s beef?

That’s it in a nutshell. From the Lawfare piece Strzok is pimping:

Ironically, the Clinesmith charges were filed at the same time that the Justice Department awaits a ruling on its motion to dismiss the case against Flynn—for lack of materiality. The department tied itself into knots to argue that Flynn’s lies were immaterial. Yet, strangely, it gives no such benefit to Clinesmith.

We wonder why these Flynn defenders—led by the president and the attorney general—have not lifted their voices on behalf of Clinesmith. Proof of materiality seems weaker in Clinesmith’s case than in Flynn’s. The CIA email that Clinesmith altered stated accurately that Page was “not a source” but that he was an “operational contact,” that is, someone with a relationship with the CIA. Clinesmith’s alteration arguably clarified the adviser’s relationship with the CIA rather than obscuring it, though this does not excuse his misrepresentation.

In the real world, these details about Clinesmith’s email do not defeat the materiality requirement—especially given that, as we have noted, materiality is typically easy to prove. But the arguments made in defense of Flynn would also seem to apply to Clinesmith. If we applied the ridiculous standard used by the Justice Department in the Flynn case to Clinesmith, then his alteration was similarly not material.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement