WASHINGTON, DC- Only in Washington, DC, can you go before Congress and lie your ass off, only to have a Democrat-appointed leftist judge let you off the hook.
That is precisely what happened to smug former FBI Director James Comey, who miraculously had his charges of making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding dismissed by a Clinton-appointed judge, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie. Currie similarly dismissed charges against calorically challenged New York Attorney General Letitia James, who lied on mortgage documents.
The basis for Comey’s indictment was that he lied when he told lawmakers he didn’t authorize anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for media reports damaging to President Trump, and further, that he used Columbia Law Professor Daniel Richman as a conduit to leak material while he was simultaneously working as a government contractor. As ZeroHedge reports, emails between Comey and Richman are critical to the government’s case against Comey.
The two indictments were dismissed by Currie, who ruled that the appointment of interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, who filed the charges, was unconstitutional and thereby rendered the indictments invalid. However, the government is seeking to have the charges reintroduced before another grand jury, using Richman’s devices as a basis. Six years ago, Judge James Boasberg signed a warrant allowing the FBI to seize Richman’s devices. The evidence contained on those devices is crucial to the government’s case.
Now, another far-left Clinton-appointed judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who at age 82 should be looking to retire, has inserted herself into the middle of the case, ruling that the FBI has to destroy emails contained on the device by 4 pm on Monday, December 22.
This is setting up a constitutional crisis involving separation of powers, according to Michael R. Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, noting that those powers are “essential to the Republic, and either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court must intervene immediately.”
The ruling by Kotelly is, to be mild, highly unusual. ZeroHedge notes that Richman is not charged in the case and has no standing as a defendant, yet filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) to reclaim the emails, claiming that the government violated his Fourth Amendment rights. That rule typically applies to individuals seeking the return of property seized during an unlawful search.
Since Richman isn’t a target of the prosecution, requesting the return of the emails departs from legal norms, ZeroHedge wrote. Comey has no standing to challenge the warrant executed on Richman’s devices and accounts.
On Dec. 13, Kollar-Kotelly granted the motion and ordered the Justice Department to return all data seized from Richman, ruling that prosecutors handled the material with “callous disregard” for Richman’s rights and that it was improperly used to indict Comey.
She ruled that a copy of the emails was to be directed to a Biden-appointed judge, Michael Nachmanoff, who is presiding over the Comey case in the Eastern District of Virginia.
However, despite that copy being preserved, her ruling bars the FBI and prosecutors from reviewing those emails as they pursue a new indictment, effectively tying the government’s hands.
Davis addressed the ramifications of Kollar-Kotelly's ruling:
“This salvation of a copy of the emails, however, does not lessen the impact of Kollar-Kotelly's horrible ruling. The FBI and the prosecution will be unable to review them in their efforts to seek a new indictment if Currie’s dismissal ruling survives on appeal.”
The government has six months after an indictment’s dismissal under statute-of-limitations regulations to file for another indictment, a clock that is suspended during the appellate process. However, if the government cannot review the emails to use as evidence in another indictment try, it would have a significant impact on the government’s ability to put forth a case.
The order by Kollar-Kotelly has massive ramifications, since it involves a judge outside the criminal case and outside the district where it is pending, ordering the destruction of lawfully obtained evidence. But as we’ve seen, when it comes to anything Trump, judges do not seem to care about the Constitution or the rule of law.
Davis explained:
“Usually, Rule 41(g) comes into play where a defendant has had property wrongly seized, and he moves to reclaim it. Here, Comey is not seeking to reclaim anything; Richman, a then-government contractor with whom Comey communicated extensively about government business, is seeking this evidence. Richman has to run to a partisan Democrat judge not even involved in the criminal case—and not even in the same district—to procure the destruction of crucial evidence in that case in an obvious effort to assist his friend Comey.”
As noted, this whole situation is unusual and somewhat unsettling. Typically, only a judge presiding over a criminal case has the authority to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, not a judge in a completely different district using a third party to attack the warrant. If this is allowed to stand, it is setting up a constitutional crisis of epic proportions.
ZeroHedge notes that Comey, since he has no standing, is not legally allowed to challenge the warrant against Richman. Kollar-Kotelly's ruling suggests that Richman can move to quash evidence in Virginia.
From ZeroHedge:
“Judges presiding over cases often have excluded evidence against defendants as having been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is, however, extraordinary for a different judge—especially in a different district—to interfere in and dramatically hamper the prosecution’s case based on a claim by a third party of a wrongful search and seizure, especially when the evidence the government wishest ot use consists of communication between that third party and the defendant—a defendant who was a senior government official.”
This is just another example of radical, partisan judges allowing ridiculous claims against President Trump to move forward, often without a shred of evidence, while those same partisan judges shield those who engaged in lawfare campaigns or pushed hoaxes against the president.
“If higher courts do not rein in these rogue judges, Congress must do so through oversight, withholding funds from judicial appropriations, and impeachment,” Davis said. “A system where the judiciary enables lawfare and then shields its perpetrators from legal consequences is unsustainable, and higher courts must put a stop to it.”
Comments