Booker Tease Washington: Democrat Senator Flirts With Possible 2028 Presidential Run
Middle Man: Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear Wants Voters to Know He’s Not the...
Irish Band U2 Release Song 'American Obituary' Honoring Renee Good
Detroit Police Officer and Sergeant Face Firing for Breaking Policy and Tipping Off...
America Owns Hockey: US Women Win OT Gold, Leave Canada Spiraling and Seething
Absentee Mom's Illegal Stay Leads to Daughter's Disney Visit Ending in 4-Month ICE...
Renee Good Memorial Burned in Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Incident
Absurd Tara Palmeri Goes Nuclear: Accuses Michael Tracey of Being Paid to Smear...
Wife of Illegal Who Killed Georgia Teacher Says What Happened, Happened
WaPo: Some Say Atlantic Story ‘Felt Misleading’ Once They Learned It Was Made...
Elmo Wishes Ramadan Mubarak to All of His Friends
Brian Stelter: ABC News Has Admirably Insulated The View From Equal Time Rules
China's 'Killer Robots' Terrify Americans on X — Until Everyone Realizes It's Just...
WaPo: Dancers Reenact Shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Front of...
Bodies Buried at Epstein Ranch? New Mexico Allegedly Opens Disturbing Probe

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