Clay Jones for December 27, 2022

Shouldn’t he be in the dock for witness tampering?

“Trump” has come to mean a lot of things, hasn’t it.

I would love to be able to cross-examine someone like Tony Ornato, formerly of the Secret Service who had been head of Trump’s protective detail before the unprecedented promotion from a security position in Secret Service to a political position as Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff.

When questioned about the events of January 6, 2021, especially with regard to some of the details related by Mark Meadow’s aide (and Trump loyalist) Cassidy Hutchison, Ornato repeated claimed he “did not recall.”

In light of the recent revelations as to how attorneys provided by the Trump crime family INSTRUCTED their clients not to recall, I would pursue a line of questioning that would include the following:

Q: Were you advised by counsel to answer that you “do not recall” even if you did, in fact, recall the facts because it would be difficult to provide evidence to the contrary?

Q: Are you a trained law enforcement officer (Secret Service)?

Q: As a trained law enforcement officer, is it true that you are trained to be observant and watchful and make mental notes for future recall in assembling and defending criminal cases for prosecution?

Q: January 6, 2021 is a date that, like December 7, 1941 (Pearl Harbor) or November 22, 1963 (JFK assassination) or September 11, 2001 (Bush fails to connect terrorist dots day) that anyone alive at the time remembers where they were and what they were doing. ESPECIALLY someone who was there and in the middle of the action should be able to remember what they saw, what they did and what happened. Many of your lesser subordinates remember clearly the events of the day. Yet you, as a trained law enforcement and security specialist who was right in the middle of the action, after being coached to not remember (even if you did) now claim not to recall any of the relevant details of what was going on around you at the time?

Q: Do you have dementia or are you severely incompetent?

Any other suggestions for cross-examination follow-up questions?

After reading many of the January 6th Committee’s interviews, “I don’t recall” was the most common reply to questions… wonder how many had Trump provided lawyers

It’s all in the ethical construction. An amoral man is not the same as a moral man.

Is that not what TFG said after he squirrled away all those AZ donations from the suckers and losers? “I cannot recall”?

Hillary Clinton told the FBI I do not recall or remember 39 times in interviews with the FBI about her private email servers. Reported by CNN in 2016.

20-something Cassidy Hutchinson has ethical standards, and outsmarted a 50-something lawyer with none.

The transcript of Hutchinson’s Sept 14, 2022 testimony to the Jan 6th Committee is a great read!

https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20220914_Cassidy%20J.%20Hutchinson%20REDACTED.pdf

From pg 85-97, she describes how she engineered a 3rd appearance before the Jan 6th Committee to tell what she was told not to recall by the Trump-paid shyster, Stefan Passantino, who ostensibly was representing her. She did an end run around him, and gas-lit him in the process. Brilliant!

Passantino’s LinkedIn page says he’s a parter at Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, but he’s been scrubbed from their website, and is “on leave.”

“trump” and “ethics” are polar opposites… almost as much as “Lawyer” and “Ethics” are.

An “ethics lawyer” is something of an oxymoron. While there are such “ethics lawyers,” they’re primarily concerned with how close you can get to the line between what is lawful or unlawful, without quite crossing it. Generally speaking, lawyers are supremely indifferent to what is “right” or “wrong.” Lawyers are only concerned with what is “legal” or “illegal.”

Reminds me of that skit….

You must pay the rent…..LOL

Ethical lawyer is an oxymoron

Graduated from the T rump school of lawyering. First and only lesson. Teach your clients A: I don’t recall or B: I envoke the fifth. Your now a lawyer. Pay at the window and receive your diploma.

and if you don’t, I’ll tie you to the tracks

Special counsel John Durham’s investigation proved to be a rather embarrassing failure. As The Washington Post reported, it also proved to be quite expensive.

In other words, the $6.5 million figure — in taxpayer money — is where things stand now. It’s difficult to say with confidence how much higher the final price tag will eventually end up.

The original investigation into Donald Trump’s Russia scandal, led by then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller, led to a series of striking findings: The former president’s political operation in 2016 sought, embraced, capitalized on, and lied about Russian assistance — and then took steps to obstruct the investigation into the foreign interference.

The Trump White House wasn’t pleased with the conclusions, but the Justice Department’s inspector general conducted a lengthy probe of the Mueller investigation, and not surprisingly, the IG’s office found nothing improper.

This, of course, only outraged Trump further, so then-Attorney General Bill Barr tapped a federal prosecutor — U.S. Attorney John Durham — to conduct his own investigation into the investigation. That was more than three years ago.

At this point, Durham’s investigation into the Russia scandal investigation has lasted longer than Mueller’s original probe of the Russia scandal.

After an extended period of apparent inactivity, the prosecutor last year indicted cybersecurity attorney Michael Sussmann for allegedly having lied to the FBI. The case proved to be baseless; Sussmann was acquitted; and one of the jurors publicly mocked Durham’s team for having taken the case to trial.

Five months later, Durham and his team also tried to prosecute Russian analyst Igor Danchenko. That failed too, bringing the probe to an apparent, ignominious end.

Two trials, Zero convictions, One provocative resignationA largely meaningless guilty plea from an obscure figure, $6.5 million price tag

By any fair measure, this is the most misguided and inconsequential investigation ever.

Snidely Whiplash lives!

“Traitors.”— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, on 18 Republicans who voted for $1.7T omnibus bill

‘Waste of taxpayer money’: Experts ‘baffled’ by DeSantis’ COVID-19 vaccine investigation

Bobbert’s 2nd Amendment cafe failed and is being replaced by a Mexican restaurant.

Unethical Democrats are not morally truthful.