Ditching Democracy: Scott Jennings Reminds CNN Hosts Dems Picking Power Over People to...
Scare Tactics: MS NOW’s Jen Psaki Agreed With Graham Platner That ‘Scandals’ Were...
Totally Hitlarious: Chris Murphy Worries About Dem Party’s Credibility If Platner Isn’t Pr...
Bernie’s Journey: A Vast Distance Separates Sanders’ Reactions to Brett Kavanaugh and...
The Odyssey Backlash Is 'Transphobia and Racism' Under the Guise of Historical Accuracy
Old Audio Casts Doubts on Abdul El-Sayed’s Claim He Never Called to Defund...
Pearl-Clutching Grifters: Bulwark's Fake Platner Skepticism Exposed
Politico Correspondent Clarifies How Graham Platner Is Not ‘DSA-Backed’
After Latest Platner Scandal, Bill Kristol Notes the GOP Nominated Ken Paxton
Hot Take: If Platner Was Blackout Drunk, How Do We Know She Didn’t...
Sunny Hostin’s 'Vote Blue No Matter Who' Brain Rot: Ride or Die for...
NYT Columnist Charles Blow Defends Platner Staying in the Race, Citing Donald Trump,...
Jill Filipovic Praises Dems for Discovering Sex Pests Are Bad — Just as...
‘I Believe Jenny’: MN Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan Now Believes a Woman
Dulling Her Sparkle: Congressman to File Articles of Impeachment Against Biden Activist Ju...

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