Something To Think About.

Col.Ralph Peters wrote

“March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:

First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you’ve shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don’t often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.

Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to “support and defend the Constitution,” and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.

The Snowflakes on the Right in the Gun Debate:

I’m hoping to write up something about the shooting at the Stoneman Duglous High school but have not been able to finish it. But I’ll plod on and cover it next week. In the meantime I’ve been wondering how it is that the debates over guns has become a right and left issue.

Perhaps this is the biggest coup ever by the National Rifle Association to identify itself with the right side of the political spectrum. I’ve noticed that if someone writes something critical of the present gun laws some of the responses to him or her are that the person is a leftist. Many of these don’t stop there but call the person a “snowflake.” Now that’s a term I did not grow up with and appears of recent vintage. I wanted to find out its meaning and how it became associated with those who were unhappy with the present gun laws.

I went to the Merriam-Webster dictionary and learned the term as been applied to people in the early 1860s as those who were opposed to the abolition of slavery. In other words in today’s American patois we’d call those persons Pro-Slavery.

Here Is The Law As Spelled Out By A Judge Regarding The Memo

I have written about the prosecutor’s failure to disclose evidence to FBI Agent John Connolly that potentially was favorable to him. Thanks to Henry I am able to provide a copy of a court order in this area. This spells out a prosecutor’s obligation. d
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
 
Criminal No. 17-232-01
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA   v.
 MICHAEL T. FLYNN  (Defendant )
ORDER 
 Pursuant to
Brady v. Maryland 
, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, the government has a continuing obligation to produce all evidence required by the law and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
See
373 U.S. at 87 (holding that due process requires disclosure of “evidence [that] is material either to guilt or to punishment” upon request);
Kyles v. Whitley , 514U.S. 419, 437  38 (1995) (holding that the obligation to disclose includes evidence “known only to police investigators and not to thprosecutor” and that “the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government’s behalf . . . , including the police”);
United Statesv. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976) (holding that the duty to disclose exculpatory evidence applies even when there has been no request by the accused);
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.150, 153-54 (1972) (holding that Brady
encompasses impeachment evidence);
see alsoFed. R. Crim. P. 16(a) (outlining information subject to government disclosure); United States v. Marshall   132 F.3d 63, 67 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (holding that the disclosure requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(C)apply to inculpatory, as well as exculpatory, evidence). The government’s obligation to provide exculpatory     evidence pursuant to Brady in timely manner is not diminished either by the fact that such evidence also constitutes evidence that must be produced later pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18U.S.C. § 3500, or by the fact that such evidence need not be produced according to Rule 16.
See United States v.Tarantino
, 846 F.2d 1384, 1414 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1988);
see also
Advisory Committee Note to Fed.R. Crim. P. 16 (1974) (“The rule is intendeto prescribe the minimum amount of discovery to which the parties are entitled.”). Where doubt exists as to the usefulness of the evidence to the defendant, the government must resolve all such doubts in favor of full disclosure.
See United States v. Paxson 861 F.2d 730, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1988).     Accordingly, the Court,  sua sponte,  directs thgovernmento produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations– any evidence in its possession that is
See United States v. Ohiri   , 133 F. App’x 555, 562 (10th Cir. 2005);   
United States v. Avellino  , 136 F.3d 249, 255 (2d Cir. 1998);
Sanchez v. United States  , 50 F.3d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir. 1995);
White v. United States , 858 F.2d416, 422 (8th Cir. 1988);
Campbell v. Marshall , 76F.2d 314, 322-24 (6th Cir.1985);
United States v. Nelson, 97F. Supp. 2d 123, 135-136 (D.D.C. 2013
);  Buffey v. Ballard , 782 S.E. 2d 204 (W. Va. 2015).
favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment. The government is further directed to produce  all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form. For example, the government must produce documents as they are kept in the usuacourse of business or must organize and label them clearly. The government must also produce electronically stored information in form in which it is ordinarily maintained unless the form is not readily usable, in which case the government is directed to produce it in a readily usable form. If the information already exists or was memorialized in a tangible format, such as a document or recording, the information shall be produced in that format. If the information does not exist in such a format and, as a result, the government is providing the information in a summary format, the summary must include sufficient detail anspecificity to enable the defense to assess its relevance and potential usefulness.
Finally, if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for
in camera
review.
SO ORDERED
.
Signed 
:
Emmet G. Sullivan
 
United States District JudgeDecember 12, 2017

The Strange Happenings That Occurred To FBI Agent John Connolly for Not Lying.

I wrote how siting through FBI Agent John Connolly’s trial I settled on the idea he was being prosecuted because he embarrassed the FBI. That may have been the motive of the FBI in prosecuting him so it could pretend he was doing what he should not have been doing when he was actually doing his job. But it did not seem to be the motive of the prosecutors in the case.

The prosecution team included, or I should say was led by, Fred Wyshak. The prosecutor trying the Connolly case in Boston was John Durham. Wyshak is the prosecutor who hid the memo that I wrote about the other day that contained information that I suggest should have been disclosed to Connolly.  It seemed to me their motive in bringing the case was to squeeze Connolly into providing information  to them on the former president of the Massachusetts Senate, William “Billy” Bulger, the younger brother of Whitey Bulger.

Looking Back on the Strange Case of FBI Agent John Connolly – Deep State?

Yesterday I posted about a memo about John Connolly the FBI agent scheduled to die in prison for a crime he did not commit. That is here.

Now I’m not a believer in the “deep state” or “dark state”  or whatever you call it. There are too many good people in America for such a cabal to arise. But in Connolly’s case there are lots of things that leave me scratching my head wondering what’s going on. If I believed in one of those “states” the Connolly case would surely fortify that belief.

I suggest that because some mighty odd things have happened to John Connolly. Back years ago I wrote a book about his trial “Don’t Embarrass the Family.” Anyone who read it would know that I’m not a fan of Connolly who by the way is no relation. When John got sentenced back in 2002 to ten years in prison I thought perhaps that was a little harsh since he was acquitted of the major charges against him.  But he did do some things that seemed unusual for a retired FBI agent such as using Kevin Weeks, who was Whitey Bulger’s sidekick and participated in murders with him, to convey messages back and forth to Stevie Flemmi (another guy with a dozen or so murders) who was incarcerated in the County of Plymouth jail for the purpose of helping Flemmi and his gangster buddies beat racketeering charges pending against them in federal court in Boston.

Sunday Bombshell: FBI Agent John Connolly Finds Memo Exonerating Him Hidden By Federal Prosecutor Fred Wyshak

What do we say about federal prosecutor Fred Wyshak who has information that FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick who was the assistant special agent in charge at relevant times believes that FBI Agent John Connolly had nothing to do with the murder for which he will spend the rest of his life in a Florida prison but he fails to disclose this information to John Connolly but instead hides it.

Here’s what Wyshak knew:

On Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 4:37 p.m.  A memo was sent from James Marra from the Office of the Inspector General to Fred Wyshak and Mike Von Zamft the prosecutors of Connolly.  It read:

“Fred/Mike: 

Bob Fitzpatrick voluntarily called me this afternoon.

Bob stated that he may have a potential terrorist financing matter that needs federal investigation. I referred Fitzpatrick to the FBI and/or ICE. He stated that he would call FBI SAC Ken Kaiser directly.

Fitzpatrick also stated that it was his personal “opinion” that John Connolly was not responsible for the Halloran and Callahan murders. However, he offered no specific information to support his opinion and agreed that he was not privy to all the evidence in the Connolly murder prosecution case in Florida. Fitzpatrick added that he has no information that Connolly did or did not reveal FBI informant identities to Bulger/Flemmi.

Dissecting the MEMO: If Some Corroboration of Steele Failed Does It Matter?

The MEMO  after complaining the judge was not notified that Steele was hired by a firm that was paid by the DNC and Hillary Clinton, then notes that Steele met with Yahoo News and other media outlets in September at the direction of the DNC and Hillary. That Steele admitted he met with them at the direction of the people who hired him. It then says an article by Michael Isikoff in Yahoo News was “derived from information leaked by Steele” to it. Strange use of the word “leaked.” It wasn’t leaked since it was his work product. He gave it to them.

The MEMO suggests the article in Yahoo News was used by the FBI to corroborate Steele’s dossier. If that is true it may be a problem. However, one big question is how much did it corroborate it, and whether the DOJ or FBI knew (especially those high-ranking officials) that was the case. Assuming some of the information Steele gave to Yahoo News is used to corroborate what he stated, then its effect must be assessed with the rest of the material.

Dissecting the MEMO: An Application is Not a Trial

The MEMO points out that an application is involved in getting a FISA warrant. It does not tell where the application comes from or what it involves. It does though tell us that it must be certified by a higher up in the FBI and then it goes on to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for approval. These are steps that are necessary prior to it being presented to a judge.

The MEMO indicates who the officials were who approved the four known FISA warrants against Carter Page. For the FBI it was James Comey for the first three and then acting director Andrew McCabe; for the DOJ it was Sally Yates – who by the way was concerned with the FBI’s information on General Flynn that she advised the counsel to Trump Donald McGahn that Flynn might be compromised by the Russians; Dana Boente who was acting deputy attorney general – who by the way was just picked to be the FBI’s next general counsel; and  Rod Rosenstein the present deputy attorney general. The MEMO  does not make it clear which of the four each approved.