They're Coming for Your Kids: MN's New 'Ethnic Studies' Program Is a Woke...
Ratio Alert! PBS Lets Us Know How Many 'People in Small Vessels' Have...
Disgusting: Julie Roginsky Goes Full Hitler on Bari Weiss
Our Gift to You This Holiday Season
Dem Rep. Ted Lieu Suggests 'Best Way to Oppose Fake News' and We...
Marco Drops the Gloves! State Department Sanctions European Leaders Who Censor Free Speech
Compare Crime Stats From Last Year of Biden to First Year of Trump...
Going Lower: Eric Swalwell Politicizes a Former GOP Rival's Terrible Cancer Diagnosis
Politico's Even MORE Annoying European Bureau Claims the 'Far Right' Is 'Stealing' Christm...
The New Yorker Has a Lot of People Asking Why They Deleted This...
Slow News Day: The Hill Reports That Adam Kinzinger Cancels His Paramount Plus...
BURN! El Salvador Prez Makes Hillary Clinton an Offer She WILL Refuse Regarding...
We Thought Eric Swalwell Had Achieved Peak Cringe. We Were Wrong
Hunter Biden Says We Don't Want Immigrants That Are Coming Here Illegally
Man Warns MAGA That He's Not the Guy to Attack and Will Go...

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